[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 20, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H9960-H9978]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 3630, MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF AND 
                        JOB CREATION ACT OF 2011

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 502, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs, 
and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and I have a 
motion at the desk.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate 
amendments.
  The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:

       Senate amendments:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Temporary 
     Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                 TITLE I--TEMPORARY PAYROLL TAX RELIEF

Sec. 101. Extension of payroll tax holiday.

 TITLE II--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Temporary extension of unemployment compensation provisions.
Sec. 202. Extended unemployment benefits under the Railroad 
              Unemployment Insurance Act.

          TITLE III--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF HEALTH PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Medicare physician payment update.
Sec. 302. 2-month extension of MMA section 508 reclassifications.
Sec. 303. Extension of Medicare work geographic adjustment floor.
Sec. 304. Extension of exceptions process for Medicare therapy caps.
Sec. 305. Extension of payment for technical component of certain 
              physician pathology services.
Sec. 306. Extension of ambulance add-ons.
Sec. 307. Extension of physician fee schedule mental health add-on 
              payment.
Sec. 308. Extension of outpatient hold harmless provision.
Sec. 309. Extending minimum payment for bone mass measurement.
Sec. 310. Extension of the qualifying individual (QI) program.
Sec. 311. Extension of Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA).
Sec. 312. Extension of the temporary assistance for needy families 
              program.

                  TITLE IV--MORTGAGE FEES AND PREMIUMS

Sec. 401. Guarantee Fees.
Sec. 402. FHA guarantee fees.

                       TITLE V--OTHER PROVISIONS

                    Subtitle A--Keystone XL Pipeline

Sec. 501. Permit for Keystone XL pipeline.

                    Subtitle B--Budgetary Provisions

Sec. 511. Senate point of order against an emergency designation.
Sec. 512. PAYGO scorecard estimates.

                 TITLE I--TEMPORARY PAYROLL TAX RELIEF

     SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 601 of the Tax 
     Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job 
     Creation Act of 2010 (26 U.S.C. 1401 note) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(c) Payroll Tax Holiday Period.--The term `payroll tax 
     holiday period' means--
       ``(1) in the case of the tax described in subsection 
     (a)(1), calendar years 2011 and 2012, and
       ``(2) in the case of the taxes described in subsection 
     (a)(2), the period beginning January 1, 2011, and ending 
     February 29, 2012.''.
       (b) Special Rules for 2012.--Section 601 of such Act (26 
     U.S.C. 1401 note) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(f)  Special Rules for 2012.--
       ``(1) Limitation on wages and self-employment income.--In 
     the case of--
       ``(A) any taxable year beginning in 2012, subsection (a)(1) 
     shall only apply with respect to so much of the taxpayer's 
     self-employment income (as defined in section 1402(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986) as does not exceed the excess 
     (if any) of--
       ``(i) $18,350, over
       ``(ii) the amount of wages and compensation taken into 
     account under subparagraph (B), and
       ``(B) any remuneration received during the portion of the 
     payroll tax holiday period occurring during 2012, subsection 
     (a)(2) shall only apply to so much of the sum of the 
     taxpayer's wages (as defined in section 3121(a) of such Code) 
     and compensation (as defined section 3231(e) of such Code) as 
     does not exceed $18,350.
       ``(2) Coordination with deduction for employment taxes.--In 
     the case of a taxable year beginning in 2012, subparagraph 
     (A) of subsection (b)(2) shall be applied as if it read as 
     follows:
       `` `(A) the sum of--
       `` `(i) 59.6 percent of the portion of such taxes 
     attributable to the tax imposed by section 1401(a) of such 
     Code (determined after the application of this section) on so 
     much of self-employment income (as defined in section 1402(b) 
     of such Code) as does not exceed the amount of self-
     employment income described in paragraph (1)(A), plus
       `` `(ii) one-half of the portion of such taxes attributable 
     to the tax imposed by section 1401(a) of such Code 
     (determined without regard to this section) on self-
     employment income (as so defined) in excess of such amount, 
     plus'.''
       (c) Technical Amendments.--Paragraph (2) of section 601(b) 
     of such Act (26 U.S.C. 1401 note) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``of such Code'' after ``164(f)'',
       (2) by inserting ``of such Code'' after ``1401(a)'' in 
     subparagraph (A), and
       (3) by inserting ``of such Code'' after ``1401(b)'' in 
     subparagraph (B).
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to remuneration 
     received, and taxable years beginning, after December 31, 
     2011.
       (2) Technical amendments.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (c) shall take effect as if included in the 
     enactment of section 601 of the Tax Relief, Unemployment 
     Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.

 TITLE II--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 
                   PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``January 3, 2012'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``March 6, 2012'';
       (B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking 
     ``january 3, 2012'' and inserting ``march 6, 2012''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``June 9, 2012'' and 
     inserting ``August 15, 2012''.
       (2) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers 
     and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5 
     (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
       (A) by striking ``January 4, 2012'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``March 7, 2012''; and
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``June 11, 2012'' and 
     inserting ``August 15, 2012''.

[[Page H9961]]

       (3) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension 
     Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is 
     amended by striking ``June 10, 2012'' and inserting ``August 
     15, 2012''.
       (4) Section 203 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment 
     Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (d), in the second sentence of the flush 
     matter following paragraph (2), by striking ``December 31, 
     2011'' and inserting ``February 29, 2012''; and
       (B) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``December 31, 2011'' 
     and inserting ``February 29, 2012''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:
       ``(H) the amendments made by section 201(a)(1) of the 
     Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011; and''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Tax 
     Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job 
     Creation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-312).

     SEC. 202. EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE RAILROAD 
                   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT.

       (a) Extension.--Section 2(c)(2)(D)(iii) of the Railroad 
     Unemployment Insurance Act, as added by section 2006 of the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 
     111-5) and as amended by section 9 of the Worker, 
     Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 (Public 
     Law 111-92) and section 505 of the Tax Relief, Unemployment 
     Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 
     (Public Law 111-312), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``June 30, 2011'' and inserting ``August 
     31, 2011''; and
       (2) by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and inserting 
     ``February 29, 2012''.
       (b) Clarification on Authority to Use Funds.--Funds 
     appropriated under either the first or second sentence of 
     clause (iv) of section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Railroad 
     Unemployment Insurance Act shall be available to cover the 
     cost of additional extended unemployment benefits provided 
     under such section 2(c)(2)(D) by reason of the amendments 
     made by subsection (a) as well as to cover the cost of such 
     benefits provided under such section 2(c)(2)(D), as in effect 
     on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act.

          TITLE III--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF HEALTH PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT UPDATE.

       Section 1848(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395w-4(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(13) Update for first two months of 2012.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (7)(B), (8)(B), 
     (9)(B), (10)(B), (11)(B), and (12)(B), in lieu of the update 
     to the single conversion factor established in paragraph 
     (1)(C) that would otherwise apply for the period beginning on 
     January 1, 2012, and ending on February 29, 2012, the update 
     to the single conversion factor shall be zero percent.
       ``(B) No effect on computation of conversion factor for 
     remaining portion of 2012 and subsequent years.--The 
     conversion factor under this subsection shall be computed 
     under paragraph (1)(A) for the period beginning on March 1, 
     2012, and ending on December 31, 2012, and for 2013 and 
     subsequent years as if subparagraph (A) had never applied.''.

     SEC. 302. 2-MONTH EXTENSION OF MMA SECTION 508 
                   RECLASSIFICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 106(a) of division B of the Tax 
     Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 1395 note), as 
     amended by section 117 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP 
     Extension Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-173), section 124 of 
     the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 
     2008 (Public Law 110-275), sections 3137(a) and 10317 of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-
     148), and section 102(a) of the Medicare and Medicaid 
     Extenders Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-309), is amended by 
     striking ``September 30, 2011'' and inserting ``November 30, 
     2011''.
       (b) Special Rule for October and November 2011.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), for purposes of 
     implementation of the amendment made by subsection (a), 
     including for purposes of the implementation of paragraph (2) 
     of section 117(a) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP 
     Extension Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-173), for the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on November 30, 
     2011, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall use 
     the hospital wage index that was promulgated by the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services in the Federal Register on 
     August 18, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 51476), and any subsequent 
     corrections.
       (2) Exception.--In determining the wage index applicable to 
     hospitals that qualify for wage index reclassification, the 
     Secretary shall, for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, 
     and ending on November 30, 2011, include the average hourly 
     wage data of hospitals whose reclassification was extended 
     pursuant to the amendment made by subsection (a) only if 
     including such data results in a higher applicable 
     reclassified wage index. Any revision to hospital wage 
     indexes made as a result of this paragraph shall not be 
     effected in a budget neutral manner.
       (c) Timeframe for Payments.--The Secretary shall make 
     payments required under subsections (a) and (b) by not later 
     than December 31, 2012.

     SEC. 303. EXTENSION OF MEDICARE WORK GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT 
                   FLOOR.

       Section 1848(e)(1)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395w-4(e)(1)(E)) is amended by striking ``before January 1, 
     2012'' and inserting ``before March 1, 2012''.

     SEC. 304. EXTENSION OF EXCEPTIONS PROCESS FOR MEDICARE 
                   THERAPY CAPS.

       Section 1833(g)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395l(g)(5)) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and 
     inserting ``February 29, 2012''.

     SEC. 305. EXTENSION OF PAYMENT FOR TECHNICAL COMPONENT OF 
                   CERTAIN PHYSICIAN PATHOLOGY SERVICES.

       Section 542(c) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP 
     Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (as enacted 
     into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554), as 
     amended by section 732 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
     Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4 
     note), section 104 of division B of the Tax Relief and Health 
     Care Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4 note), section 104 of the 
     Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Public 
     Law 110-173), section 136 of the Medicare Improvements for 
     Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-275), 
     section 3104 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act (Public Law 111-148), and section 105 of the Medicare and 
     Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-309), is 
     amended by striking ``and 2011'' and inserting ``2011, and 
     the first two months of 2012''.

     SEC. 306. EXTENSION OF AMBULANCE ADD-ONS.

       (a) Ground Ambulance.--Section 1834(l)(13)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)(13)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
     ``January 1, 2012'' and inserting ``March 1, 2012''; and
       (2) in each of clauses (i) and (ii), by striking ``January 
     1, 2012'' and inserting ``March 1, 2012'' each place it 
     appears.
       (b) Air Ambulance.--Section 146(b)(1) of the Medicare 
     Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (Public 
     Law 110-275), as amended by sections 3105(b) and 10311(b) of 
     Public Law 111-148 and section 106(b) of the Medicare and 
     Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-309), is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and inserting 
     ``February 29, 2012''.
       (c) Super Rural Ambulance.--Section 1834(l)(12)(A) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)(12)(A)) is amended by 
     striking ``January 1, 2012'' and inserting ``March 1, 2012''.

     SEC. 307. EXTENSION OF PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE MENTAL HEALTH 
                   ADD-ON PAYMENT.

       Section 138(a)(1) of the Medicare Improvements for Patients 
     and Providers Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-275), as amended by 
     section 3107 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act (Public Law 111-148) and section 107 of the Medicare and 
     Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-309), is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and inserting 
     ``February 29, 2012''.

     SEC. 308. EXTENSION OF OUTPATIENT HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION.

       Section 1833(t)(7)(D)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395l(t)(7)(D)(i)), as amended by section 3121(a) of 
     the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 
     111-148) and section 108 of the Medicare and Medicaid 
     Extenders Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-309), is amended--
       (1) in subclause (II)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``January 1, 2012'' 
     and inserting ``March 1, 2012''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``or 2011'' and 
     inserting ``2011, or the first two months of 2012''; and
       (2) in subclause (III)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``2009, and'' and 
     all that follows through ``for which'' and inserting ``2009, 
     and before March 1, 2012, for which''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``2010, and'' and 
     all that follows through ``the preceding'' and inserting 
     ``2010, and before March 1, 2012, the preceding''.

     SEC. 309. EXTENDING MINIMUM PAYMENT FOR BONE MASS 
                   MEASUREMENT.

       Section 1848 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ``and 2011'' and 
     inserting ``, 2011, and the first 2 months of 2012''; and
       (B) in paragraph (6)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``and 2011'' and inserting ``, 2011, and the first 2 months 
     of 2012''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and 2011'' and 
     inserting ``, 2011, and the first 2 months of 2012''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(2)(B)(iv)(IV), by striking ``or 
     2011'' and inserting ``, 2011, or the first 2 months of 
     2012''.

     SEC. 310. EXTENSION OF THE QUALIFYING INDIVIDUAL (QI) 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension.--Section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iv) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)(iv)) is amended by 
     striking ``December 2011'' and inserting ``February 2012''.
       (b) Extending Total Amount Available for Allocation.--
     Section 1933(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-3(g)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (O);
       (B) in subparagraph (P), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(Q) for the period that begins on January 1, 2012, and 
     ends on February 29, 2012, the total allocation amount is 
     $150,000,000.''.

     SEC. 311. EXTENSION OF TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE (TMA).

       Sections 1902(e)(1)(B) and 1925(f) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(1)(B), 1396r-

[[Page H9962]]

     6(f)) are each amended by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and 
     inserting ``February 29, 2012''.

     SEC. 312. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY 
                   FAMILIES PROGRAM.

       Activities authorized by part A of title IV and section 
     1108(b) of the Social Security Act (other than under 
     subsections (a)(3) and (b) of section 403 of such Act) shall 
     continue through February 29, 2012, in the manner authorized 
     for fiscal year 2011, and out of any money in the Treasury of 
     the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     hereby appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such 
     purpose. Grants and payments may be made pursuant to this 
     authority through the applicable portion of the second 
     quarter of fiscal year 2012 at the pro rata portion of the 
     level provided for such activities through the second quarter 
     of fiscal year 2011.

                  TITLE IV--MORTGAGE FEES AND PREMIUMS

     SEC. 401. GUARANTEE FEES.

       Subpart A of part 2 of subtitle A of title XIII of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 is amended by 
     adding after section 1326 (12 U.S.C. 4546) the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 1327. ENTERPRISE GUARANTEE FEES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Guarantee fee.--The term `guarantee fee'--
       ``(A) means a fee described in subsection (b); and
       ``(B) includes--
       ``(i) the guaranty fee charged by the Federal National 
     Mortgage Association with respect to mortgage-backed 
     securities; and
       ``(ii) the management and guarantee fee charged by the 
     Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation with respect to 
     participation certificates.
       ``(2) Average fees.--The term `average fees' means the 
     average contractual fee rate of single-family guaranty 
     arrangements by an enterprise entered into during 2011, plus 
     the recognition of any up-front cash payments over an 
     estimated average life, expressed in terms of basis points. 
     Such definition shall be interpreted in a manner consistent 
     with the annual report on guarantee fees by the Federal 
     Housing Finance Agency.
       ``(b) Increase.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Phased increase required.--Subject to subsection (c), 
     the Director shall require each enterprise to charge a 
     guarantee fee in connection with any guarantee of the timely 
     payment of principal and interest on securities, notes, and 
     other obligations based on or backed by mortgages on 
     residential real properties designed principally for 
     occupancy of from 1 to 4 families, consummated after the date 
     of enactment of this section.
       ``(B) Amount.--The amount of the increase required under 
     this section shall be determined by the Director to 
     appropriately reflect the risk of loss, as well the cost of 
     capital allocated to similar assets held by other fully 
     private regulated financial institutions, but such amount 
     shall be not less than an average increase of 10 basis points 
     for each origination year or book year above the average fees 
     imposed in 2011 for such guarantees. The Director shall 
     prohibit an enterprise from offsetting the cost of the fee to 
     mortgage originators, borrowers, and investors by decreasing 
     other charges, fees, or premiums, or in any other manner.
       ``(2) Authority to limit offer of guarantee.--The Director 
     shall prohibit an enterprise from consummating any offer for 
     a guarantee to a lender for mortgage-backed securities, if--
       ``(A) the guarantee is inconsistent with the requirements 
     of this section; or
       ``(B) the risk of loss is allowed to increase, through 
     lowering of the underwriting standards or other means, for 
     the primary purpose of meeting the requirements of this 
     section.
       ``(3) Deposit in treasury.--Amounts received from fee 
     increases imposed under this section shall be deposited 
     directly into the United States Treasury, and shall be 
     available only to the extent provided in subsequent 
     appropriations Acts. The fees charged pursuant to this 
     section shall not be considered a reimbursement to the 
     Federal Government for the costs or subsidy provided to an 
     enterprise.
       ``(c) Phase-in.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director may provide for compliance 
     with subsection (b) by allowing each enterprise to increase 
     the guarantee fee charged by the enterprise gradually over 
     the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     section, in a manner sufficient to comply with this section. 
     In determining a schedule for such increases, the Director 
     shall--
       ``(A) provide for uniform pricing among lenders;
       ``(B) provide for adjustments in pricing based on risk 
     levels; and
       ``(C) take into consideration conditions in financial 
     markets.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be interpreted to undermine the minimum increase 
     required by subsection (b).
       ``(d) Information Collection and Annual Analysis.--The 
     Director shall require each enterprise to provide to the 
     Director, as part of its annual report submitted to 
     Congress--
       ``(1) a description of--
       ``(A) changes made to up-front fees and annual fees as part 
     of the guarantee fees negotiated with lenders;
       ``(B) changes to the riskiness of the new borrowers 
     compared to previous origination years or book years; and
       ``(C) any adjustments required to improve for future 
     origination years or book years, in order to be in complete 
     compliance with subsection (b); and
       ``(2) an assessment of how the changes in the guarantee 
     fees described in paragraph (1) met the requirements of 
     subsection (b).
       ``(e) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Required adjustments.--Based on the information from 
     subsection (d) and any other information the Director deems 
     necessary, the Director shall require an enterprise to make 
     adjustments in its guarantee fee in order to be in compliance 
     with subsection (b).
       ``(2) Noncompliance penalty.--An enterprise that has been 
     found to be out of compliance with subsection (b) for any 2 
     consecutive years shall be precluded from providing any 
     guarantee for a period, determined by rule of the Director, 
     but in no case less than 1 year.
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be interpreted as preventing the Director from 
     initiating and implementing an enforcement action against an 
     enterprise, at a time the Director deems necessary, under 
     other existing enforcement authority.
       ``(f) Expiration.--The provisions of this section shall 
     expire on October 1, 2021.''.

     SEC. 402. FHA GUARANTEE FEES.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 203(c)(2) of the National Housing 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(C)(i) In addition to the premiums under subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B), the Secretary shall establish and collect annual 
     premium payments for any mortgage for which the Secretary 
     collects an annual premium payment under subparagraph (B), in 
     an amount described in clause (ii).
       ``(ii)(I) Subject to subclause (II), with respect to a 
     mortgage, the amount described in this clause is 10 basis 
     points of the remaining insured principal balance (excluding 
     the portion of the remaining balance attributable to the 
     premium collected under subparagraph (A) and without taking 
     into account delinquent payments or prepayments).
       ``(II) During the 2-year period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary shall increase 
     the number of basis points of the annual premium payment 
     collected under this subparagraph incrementally, as 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary, until the number of 
     basis points of the annual premium payment collected under 
     this subparagraph is equal to the number described in 
     subclause (I).''.
       (b) Prospective Repeal.--Section 203(c)(2) of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(2)) is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (C), as added by subsection (a), effective on 
     October 1, 2021.
       (c) Report Required.--Not later than 30 days before the 
     date on which the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     makes a determination under subsection (b)(2), the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services 
     of the House of Representatives a report that--
       (1) explains the basis for the determination; and
       (2) identifies the date on which the Secretary plans to 
     make the determination.

                       TITLE V--OTHER PROVISIONS

                    Subtitle A--Keystone XL Pipeline

     SEC. 501. PERMIT FOR KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), not 
     later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the President, acting through the Secretary of State, shall 
     grant a permit under Executive Order 13337 (3 U.S.C. 301 
     note; relating to issuance of permits with respect to certain 
     energy-related facilities and land transportation crossings 
     on the international boundaries of the United States) for the 
     Keystone XL pipeline project application filed on September 
     19, 2008 (including amendments).
       (b) Exception.--
       (1) In general.--The President shall not be required to 
     grant the permit under subsection (a) if the President 
     determines that the Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the 
     national interest.
       (2) Report.--If the President determines that the Keystone 
     XL pipeline is not in the national interest under paragraph 
     (1), the President shall, not later than 15 days after the 
     date of the determination, submit to the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of 
     the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the 
     Senate, the minority leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, and the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives a report that provides a 
     justification for determination, including consideration of 
     economic, employment, energy security, foreign policy, trade, 
     and environmental factors.
       (3) Effect of no finding or action.--If a determination is 
     not made under paragraph (1) and no action is taken by the 
     President under subsection (a) not later than 60 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the permit for the 
     Keystone XL pipeline described in subsection (a) that meets 
     the requirements of subsections (c) and (d) shall be in 
     effect by operation of law.
       (c) Requirements.--The permit granted under subsection (a) 
     shall require the following:
       (1) The permittee shall comply with all applicable Federal 
     and State laws (including regulations) and all applicable 
     industrial codes regarding the construction, connection, 
     operation, and maintenance of the United States facilities.
       (2) The permittee shall obtain all requisite permits from 
     Canadian authorities and relevant Federal, State, and local 
     governmental agencies.
       (3) The permittee shall take all appropriate measures to 
     prevent or mitigate any adverse environmental impact or 
     disruption of historic properties in connection with the 
     construction, operation, and maintenance of the United States 
     facilities.
       (4) For the purpose of the permit issued under subsection 
     (a) (regardless of any modifications under subsection (d))--

[[Page H9963]]

       (A) the final environmental impact statement issued by the 
     Secretary of State on August 26, 2011, satisfies all 
     requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and section 106 of the National 
     Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f);
       (B) any modification required by the Secretary of State to 
     the Plan described in paragraph (5)(A) shall not require 
     supplementation of the final environmental impact statement 
     described in that paragraph; and
       (C) no further Federal environmental review shall be 
     required.
       (5) The construction, operation, and maintenance of the 
     facilities shall be in all material respects similar to that 
     described in the application described in subsection (a) and 
     in accordance with--
       (A) the construction, mitigation, and reclamation measures 
     agreed to by the permittee in the Construction Mitigation and 
     Reclamation Plan found in appendix B of the final 
     environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of 
     State on August 26, 2011, subject to the modification 
     described in subsection (d);
       (B) the special conditions agreed to between the permittee 
     and the Administrator of the Pipeline Hazardous Materials 
     Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation 
     found in appendix U of the final environmental impact 
     statement described in subparagraph (A);
       (C) if the modified route submitted by the Governor of 
     Nebraska under subsection (d)(3)(B) crosses the Sand Hills 
     region, the measures agreed to by the permittee for the Sand 
     Hills region found in appendix H of the final environmental 
     impact statement described in subparagraph (A); and
       (D) the stipulations identified in appendix S of the final 
     environmental impact statement described in subparagraph (A).
       (6) Other requirements that are standard industry practice 
     or commonly included in Federal permits that are similar to a 
     permit issued under subsection (a).
       (d) Modification.--The permit issued under subsection (a) 
     shall require--
       (1) the reconsideration of routing of the Keystone XL 
     pipeline within the State of Nebraska;
       (2) a review period during which routing within the State 
     of Nebraska may be reconsidered and the route of the Keystone 
     XL pipeline through the State altered with any accompanying 
     modification to the Plan described in subsection (c)(5)(A); 
     and
       (3) the President--
       (A) to coordinate review with the State of Nebraska and 
     provide any necessary data and reasonable technical 
     assistance material to the review process required under this 
     subsection; and
       (B) to approve the route within the State of Nebraska that 
     has been submitted to the Secretary of State by the Governor 
     of Nebraska.
       (e) Effect of No Approval.--If the President does not 
     approve the route within the State of Nebraska submitted by 
     the Governor of Nebraska under subsection (d)(3)(B) not later 
     than 10 days after the date of submission, the route 
     submitted by the Governor of Nebraska under subsection 
     (d)(3)(B) shall be considered approved, pursuant to the terms 
     of the permit described in subsection (a) that meets the 
     requirements of subsection (c) and this subsection, by 
     operation of law.
       (f) Private Property Savings Clause.--Nothing in this 
     section alters the Federal, State, or local processes or 
     conditions in effect on the date of enactment of this Act 
     that are necessary to secure access from private property 
     owners to construct the Keystone XL pipeline.

                    Subtitle B--Budgetary Provisions

     SEC. 511. SENATE POINT OF ORDER AGAINST AN EMERGENCY 
                   DESIGNATION.

       Section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by--
       (1) redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (2) inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Senate Point of Order Against an Emergency 
     Designation.--
       ``(1) In general.--When the Senate is considering a bill, 
     resolution, amendment, motion, amendment between the Houses, 
     or conference report, if a point of order is made by a 
     Senator against an emergency designation in that measure, 
     that provision making such a designation shall be stricken 
     from the measure and may not be offered as an amendment from 
     the floor.
       ``(2) Supermajority waiver and appeals.--
       ``(A) Waiver.--Paragraph (1) may be waived or suspended in 
     the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       ``(B) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this subsection shall 
     be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or 
     joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of 
     three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and 
     sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling 
     of the Chair on a point of order raised under this 
     subsection.
       ``(3) Definition of an emergency designation.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (1), a provision shall be considered an 
     emergency designation if it designates any item pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       ``(4) Form of the point of order.--A point of order under 
     paragraph (1) may be raised by a Senator as provided in 
     section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       ``(5) Conference reports.--When the Senate is considering a 
     conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in 
     relation to, a bill, upon a point of order being made by any 
     Senator pursuant to this section, and such point of order 
     being sustained, such material contained in such conference 
     report shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed 
     to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede 
     from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or 
     concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as 
     the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of 
     only that portion of the conference report or House 
     amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such 
     motion in the Senate shall be debatable. In any case in which 
     such point of order is sustained against a conference report 
     (or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by 
     operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be 
     in order.''.

     SEC. 512. PAYGO SCORECARD ESTIMATES.

       The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on 
     either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of 
     the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

         Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act A bill to extend 
     the payroll tax holiday, unemployment compensation, Medicare 
     physician payment, provide for the consideration of the 
     Keystone XL pipeline, and for other purposes''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:

       Mr. Camp moves that the House disagree to the Senate 
     amendments to H.R. 3630 and request a conference with the 
     Senate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the motion 
shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The differences between the bipartisan, House-passed Middle Class Tax 
Relief and Job Creation Act and what the Senate did so it could go on 
vacation could not be clearer. The House bill puts the American people 
first. It provided certainty for middle class families struggling to 
make ends meet by extending the middle class holiday; it provided 
certainty for those left behind in this economy by extending not only 
unemployment benefits for 1 year but also the Nation's welfare program; 
it provided certainty to seniors by ensuring their doctors would not 
see reimbursement rates slashed by nearly 30 percent; and it provided 
incentives for job creators looking for ways to hire more workers by 
extending tax relief.
  The Senate decided not to do any of this. Worse yet, in a rush to get 
home for the holidays, the Senate passed something that is totally 
unworkable. Yesterday, the Congress received a letter from the National 
Payroll Reporting Consortium, a nonprofit trading association whose 
members cover more than one-third of the private-sector workforce. 
Their letter says the Senate bill ``could create substantial problems, 
confusion, and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. 
employers and employees.''
  The National Federation of Independent Business, the largest small 
business advocacy group in the Nation, representing 350,000 small 
business owners nationwide and in every State, has issued a statement 
on the Senate bill. They say:
  ``The 2-month payroll tax holiday would present a number of 
complications and costs that would disproportionately affect small 
businesses. In addition, many small employers do payroll processing in-
house by hand, and this would require them to spend time to make these 
changes.''
  With more than 5 million people working in the construction industry, 
this is what the Associated General Contractors have said about the 
Senate bill:
  ``This legislation will extend the payroll tax holiday in the most 
complex way possible, at the busiest time possible, provide little 
benefit to taxpayers and unfairly hit the small member companies of the 
Associated General Contractors of America the hardest.''
  As the Associated General Contractors say, this legislation will 
provide little benefit to taxpayers and unfairly hit the small member 
companies of the

[[Page H9964]]

organization the hardest. This legislation will add more uncertainty, 
more confusion for employers and employees, and more complexity, 
especially for small employers.
  ``Any economic benefit derived from the law would likely be eaten up 
by the inefficiency and confusion surrounding the bill's 
implementation.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that these letters, along with 
letters in opposition to the Senate bill from the National Roofing 
Contractors Association, which has over 4,000 members and is 
represented in every State; the Associated Builders and Contractors, 
which represent over 2 million American workers; and the Small Business 
Entrepreneurship Council, with over 100,000 members, be entered into 
the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  Mr. RANGEL. Reserving the right to object, and I probably won't 
object, but if the chairman is asking to put in the Record the people 
that support the awkward position that the majority has taken, my 
question would be, would we be allowed to put in the Record those 
people who are going through such economic pain and who so badly want 
to make certain that they don't get a raise in their taxes, would we be 
able to insert the letters that we get saying please don't come home 
unless you give us a tax break? I'm asking, maybe, the Parliamentarian 
whether or not I would be in order if I asked that.
  I certainly think the chairman is in order, but then we all have 
received so many letters from our constituents, it's painful, and I 
just wanted some equality in terms of how the Record would look years 
from now as to how we treated those people who are the most vulnerable. 
And I know we all are concerned about that, even though the 2 months 
may be inconvenient for the electronic way they do these things, but I 
think the pain will be far more severe for those people who would have 
a tax increase.
  Mr. CAMP. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  1120

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Regular order has been demanded.
  Does the gentleman from New York object to the request?
  Mr. RANGEL. I said I reserved it. Maybe I didn't make it clear what 
my position was. I was reserving the right to object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Regular order has been demanded. Unless the 
unanimous-consent request is withdrawn, the gentleman from New York 
must either object or withdraw his reservation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Well, with all respect to my chairman, I withdraw my 
reservation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York withdraws his 
reservation of objection.
  Without objection, the request is granted.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP. I thank the gentleman from New York for withdrawing.
  These letters, many of them were written to both parties, both 
leaders. I think Mr. Levin and I both received these letters. They were 
written to the Congress. It's routine that we do these. And on his own 
time the gentleman may do as he wishes.
  I would say, Mr. Speaker, our economy is too weak and the American 
people have been struggling for far too long for Congress not to work 
out our differences. America is not on vacation, nor should the Senate 
be. We have 2 weeks to find a solution and send something to the 
President for his signature. That is what House Republicans are 
proposing today.
  Let's look at the differences between the House and the Senate.
  The House extended unemployment for 13 months. The Senate bill 
extended unemployment benefits for only 2 months, meaning an estimated 
4 million Americans could lose the extended unemployment benefits next 
year they would get under the House bill.
  The House reformed the unemployment program to focus it more on 
getting people the training and education they need to get back to 
work, not just handing out checks. The Senate did not.
  The House protected seniors' health care for the next 2 years by 
ensuring doctors in the Medicare program don't have their 
reimbursements cut by more than 27 percent. The Senate did this for 
only 2 months.
  The House provided a 1-year extension of the payroll tax holiday, 
ensuring a worker earning $50,000 next year has $1,000 more in their 
pocket. The Senate did this for only 2 months, meaning that same worker 
would have less than $200 in their pocket, or $800 less in take-home 
pay than under the House-passed bill.
  The House included a pay freeze for Members of Congress and civilian 
Federal workers. The Senate did not.
  The House put an end to welfare benefits being accessed at ATMs 
located in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs. The Senate did not.
  The House protected Social Security by reducing overpayments. The 
Senate did not.
  The House included a provision that saves taxpayers $9 billion by 
cracking down on fraud and abuse that is known to exist in a refundable 
tax credit program. The Senate did not.
  The House provided for economic growth and job creation in the high-
tech industry through spectrum auctions. The Senate did not.
  The House cut taxes to promote business investment and hiring. The 
Senate did not.
  Mr. Speaker, while it may sound like there are great differences 
between the House and Senate bill, it's not a difference over policy. 
It's simply a difference between the House deciding to act and the 
Senate deciding not to act on so many items.
  The House bill includes commonsense reforms the American people want, 
and it adopts a number of the President's legislative initiatives which 
represent the bipartisan cooperation the American people are demanding. 
All told, 90 percent of the House bill is paid for with policies the 
President has endorsed in one form or another.
  So what's really standing in our way? I've heard the President's 
people say that this breaks the agreement over the discretionary caps 
in the Budget Control Act, but look at that talking point. Those caps 
are adjusted only because we are proposing, as the President has 
before, to freeze the pay of Members of Congress and other Federal 
workers. Do the President and the Senate really want to risk 
unemployment benefits, a middle class tax cut, and reimbursement to 
doctors treating seniors and those with disabilities because they don't 
want to freeze the pay for Members of Congress and Federal workers?
  Mr. Speaker, it's not too late. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support a 1-year extension of the payroll tax holiday, 1 year of 
unemployment benefits with critical reforms, and a 2-year extension of 
reimbursements for Medicare doctors.
  I urge my Democrat colleagues to name conference committee members to 
resolve the differences between the two bills. Conference committees 
are a Jeffersonian concept, and we would be wise to follow the model 
laid out by our Founding Fathers. If the Senate agrees to work 
together, we will help get the American people back to work and get 
those struggling in this economy the help they need.

                                               Associated Builders


                                        and Contractors, Inc.,

                                 Arlington, VA, December 19, 2011.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Leaders: On behalf of Associated Builders and 
     Contractors (ABC), a national association with 75 chapters 
     representing more than 23,000 merit shop construction and 
     construction-related firms with nearly two million employees, 
     I am writing to express our opposition to H.R. 3630 as 
     amended by the Senate last week.
       Whether Congress ultimately chooses to extend these various 
     provisions, the proposed two month stop-gap measure merely 
     serves to delay the inevitable tough decisions, compounding 
     the climate of uncertainty that continues to impact small 
     businesses. This sort of temporary fix underscores Congress' 
     uneven, ad hoc approach toward the economy and causes more 
     harm than good for America's job creators.
       Moreover, a two month extension of the payroll tax holiday 
     creates an untenable administrative burden for employers in 
     the construction industry and beyond. In a letter sent today 
     to leaders of the tax writing committees, the National 
     Payroll Reporting

[[Page H9965]]

     Consortium warned of ``substantial problems, confusion and 
     costs'' associated with the extension's implementation.
       America's small businesses should not be punished for 
     Congress' inability to do its job. Instead of passing the 
     buck for another two months, the House and Senate must work 
     together to determine their policies for the full year and 
     provide some semblance of certainty for the companies driving 
     our economy.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Geoffrey Burr,
     Vice President, Federal Affairs.
                                  ____

                                            The Associated General


                                       Contractors of America,

                                 Arlington, VA, December 19, 2011.
     Re Oppose the two-month payroll tax holiday provision in H.R. 
         3630

     Hon. Dave Camp,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Camp: Please oppose the two-month 
     payroll tax holiday provision in H.R. 3630. This legislation 
     will extend the payroll tax holiday in the most complex way 
     possible, at the busiest time possible, provide little 
     benefit to taxpayers and unfairly hit the small member 
     companies of the Associated General Contractors of America 
     (AGC) the hardest. This legislation will add more 
     uncertainty, more confusion (for employers and employees), 
     more complexity (especially for small employers) and provide 
     a maximum tax reduction of only $367. Any economic benefit 
     derived from the law would likely be eaten up by the 
     inefficiency and confusion surrounding the bill's 
     implementation.
       There are more than five million people employed in the 
     construction industry. Members of the AGC tend to be small 
     businesses. Many of them prepare their own payroll using 
     programs that will need to be modified by the software 
     vendors and then updated software must be installed on the 
     contractors systems to ensure proper withholding is taken. If 
     they are lucky enough to have a payroll company that handles 
     their payroll processing, then the payroll companies will 
     have to modify their programs to account for the new changes. 
     Construction companies and payroll companies are not idle 
     this time of year. They are doing year-end financials and 
     producing the W-2 forms that construction employees rely on 
     to file their tax returns. If companies are not lucky enough, 
     big enough or profitable enough to have a payroll company, 
     they will be forced to manually modify payroll for all 
     employees, check their work and remit the appropriate amount 
     to the IRS, which can impose hefty penalties for errors in 
     withholding. Again, this is during the holidays, while 
     finalizing their financials and preparing W-2s for their 
     employees.
       The IRS will have to issue guidance on this change. That 
     guidance will lead to delays in implementing the law and 
     could add additional complexity above and beyond what is in 
     the statute. The taxable wage limit of $18,350 and a two-
     month payroll tax holiday appears needlessly arbitrary. It 
     will complicate coordination of the IRS Form 941 that 
     employers have to file quarterly and will likely require that 
     it be redesigned in the first quarter of the year.
       Congress had a full year to reach agreement on whether to 
     extend the payroll tax holiday. Congress seems to be ready to 
     extend the holiday for a full year. The two-month extension 
     is an arbitrary and complicated, half-baked, solution to the 
     problem of Congress not getting its act together in a timely 
     fashion. If everyone agrees that the economy needs rational 
     and decisive decision-making to revive it, why would you 
     deliver just the opposite in H.R. 3630? Please oppose the 
     two-month payroll tax holiday. Give employers and employees 
     the certainty they need to make sound personal and business 
     decisions for the entire year.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Jeffrey D. Shoaf,
     Senior Executive Director Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                    Washington, DC, Dec. 19, 2011.


 NFIB Expresses Significant Concern About Payroll Tax Impact on Small 
                                Business

       ``The two month payroll tax holiday would present a number 
     of complications and costs that would disproportionately 
     affect small businesses,'' said Brad Close, NFIB Vice 
     President for Public Policy. ``Programming and software to 
     support the new taxable wage limit may not be available for 
     small businesses at the beginning of the year and could 
     present challenges for payroll processors. In addition, many 
     small employers do payroll processing in-house by hand, and 
     this would require them to spend time to make these changes. 
     Employers that do not have correct withholding calculations 
     would need to figure out how much more to collect from 
     employees and amend employment tax returns later in the year, 
     which may also increase their chances for an audit.''
       The cost of tax compliance falls heavily on small business. 
     On average, small businesses spend more than $74 per hour on 
     meeting their compliance obligations, which represents the 
     most expensive paperwork burden that the federal government 
     imposes on small business owners.''
                                  ____

                                                  National Roofing


                                       Contractors Association

                                    Washington, DC, Dec. 19, 2011.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Reid: The National Roofing 
     Contractors Association (NRCA) strongly urges the House and 
     Senate to work together to enact a full one-year extension of 
     the payroll tax rate reduction, like that originally passed 
     by the House on December 13, 2011 (H.R. 3630). The much-
     needed reforms and short-term tax relief provided in that 
     legislation is important to employees and employers during 
     these tough economic times.
       As was asserted in the letter sent today to the House Ways 
     and Means and Senate Finance Committees by the National 
     Payroll Reporting Consortium (NPRC), NRCA is concerned that 
     the proposed two-month extension would cause ``substantial 
     problems, confusion and costs'' for employers. As the NPRC 
     states, many payroll systems would simply not be able to make 
     the programming changes that the proposed two-month extension 
     would require. This would impose an undue burden on employers 
     in the form of logistical difficulties and costs.
       Rather than enacting a two-month extension, NRCA urges 
     Congress to instead follow the traditional and appropriate 
     procedures and allow the House and Senate to enact policies 
     that will last the full year so that businesses have 
     predictable, certain policies with which to deal.
       NRCA commends you for your leadership and continued efforts 
     on this important issue. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Kent Tolley,

                                       Quality Tile Roofing, Inc.,
     President, NRCA.
                                  ____

                                                  Small Business &


                                     Entrepreneurship Council,

                                        Oakton, VA, Dec. 19, 2011.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, United States House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Reid: politically 
     expedient solutions that address legislative emergencies 
     often end up having unintended or costly consequences. Such 
     is the case with the proposed two-month extension of the 
     reduced payroll tax rate and its potential impact on 
     America's small employers and the economy at large.
       On behalf of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council 
     (SBE Council) and its 100,000 members, we urge the House and 
     Senate to agree on a full year extension of the payroll tax 
     reduction. While SBE Council believes that the payroll tax 
     cut itself is doing very little to stimulate the economy and 
     supports solutions that permanently reform the tax system 
     through lower rates on entrepreneurs and investment, we need 
     to proactively protect our members against potentially higher 
     payroll costs and the uncertainty that the two-month 
     extension would generate.
       In a letter to the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance 
     Committees, the National Payroll Reporting Consortium wrote 
     that ``insufficient lead time'' to implement changes mandated 
     by H.R. 3630 ``could create substantial problems, confusion 
     and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. 
     employers and employees.'' SBE Council agrees with this 
     assessment. Unfortunately, small businesses would bear the 
     costs of the uncertainties and complex changes that face 
     payroll processors given a two-month extension. Small 
     businesses that don't use payroll companies also face 
     complexity and a significant cost burden.
       The confusion that the two-month extension would impose on 
     employers or their payroll providers will inevitably divert 
     resources away from productive activities. Indeed, the 
     uncertainty regarding what happens next following the two-
     month expiration date will serve as additional fuel to 
     currently low business confidence levels.
       Already, small business owners are frustrated by one and 
     two-year extensions of various tax measures. Individual 
     Americans and entrepreneurs need to plan, and they are tired 
     of these short-term fixes. The two-month extension is 
     unacceptable. SBE Council urges the House and Senate to enact 
     a solution that will allow businesses and individuals to 
     properly plan.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Karen Kerrigan,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                                  National Payroll


                                         Reporting Consortium,

                                     Henrietta, NY, Dec. 19, 2011.
     Re. H.R. 3630 Payroll Tax Relief Proposals

     Representative Dave Camp,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, United States House of 
         Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Senator Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Representative Sander Levin,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, United States 
         House of Representatives, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Camp, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Levin 
     and Ranking Member Hatch: we are writing to express concerns 
     regarding Section 101 of H.R. 3630,

[[Page H9966]]

     which would establish a new Social Security Taxable Wage 
     limit of $18,350, to which a reduced 4.2% rate would apply 
     through February 29, 2012. Wages over $18,350 paid during the 
     first two months of 2012 would be subject to a 6.2% Social 
     Security tax rate.
       The National Payroll Reporting Consortium (NPRC) is a non-
     profit trade association whose member organizations provide 
     payroll processing and related services, including electronic 
     payment and filing of employment taxes, and related 
     information returns, to over 1.5 million employers 
     nationwide, covering over one-third of the private sector 
     work force. Payroll service providers serve an important role 
     in our nation's tax collection system as a conduit between 
     employers and government authorities, improving the 
     efficiency of tax collection through electronic filing and 
     improving compliance.
       As mentioned in our correspondence to the tax-writing 
     committees in July, the NPRC is strictly neutral on virtually 
     all policy matters, such as whether a reduced Social Security 
     tax rate is necessary or desirable. The organization serves 
     largely to advise policymakers as to the administrative 
     implications of proposals affecting payroll and payroll tax 
     administration.

                                  NPRC

       Accordingly, NPRC advises policymakers that we believe 
     there is insufficient lead time to accommodate the proposal 
     embodied in H.R. 3630. In our opinion enactment of H.R. 3630 
     as written could create substantial problems, confusion and 
     costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers 
     and employees.
       The difficulty is in establishing a new Social Security 
     Taxable Wage limit of $18,350 for the two-month extension 
     period. More than ten percent of the workforce is likely to 
     meet that limit, and would be subject to the higher 6.2% tax 
     rate for earnings over that amount. However, many payroll 
     systems are not likely to be able to make such a substantial 
     programming change before January or even February. The 
     systems affected tend to be highly complex, normally 
     requiring at least ninety days for a change of this magnitude 
     for software testing alone; not to mention analysis, design, 
     coding and implementation.
       As we commented to the Treasury Department concerning the 
     Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job 
     Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312), which was enacted 
     December 17, 2010 and effective on January 1, 2011, payroll 
     service providers are probably the best equipped of those 
     affected to handle last-minute tax law changes. However, 
     programming to support the new taxable wage limit might not 
     be available to employers that do not use a payroll service 
     provider until well after the effective date. Affected 
     employees could be confused by payroll adjustments seeking to 
     collect additional taxes late in the year for wages paid in 
     January or February.
       Given a two month extension, policymakers may feel they 
     have no alternative than to establish a new Social Security 
     Taxable Wage limit of $18,350; i.e., to do otherwise may 
     invite criticism because highly compensated employees could 
     meet their entire 2012 Social Security obligation at the 
     reduced 4.2% tax rate, whereas others would (assuming the 
     reduced rate is not further extended by subsequent 
     legislation) enjoy the 4.2% rate only in the first two 
     months.
       PRC understands Congress' concern that highly compensated 
     employees not enjoy the full benefit of the 2% tax break 
     because of bonuses or other high compensation falling into 
     the first two months of the year. Nevertheless with the first 
     of January now only two weeks away and payroll departments 
     trying to meet year-end compliance mandates and 
     reconciliation, there simply is insufficient time to 
     implement this major change in withholding requirements. It 
     would also be necessary to await IRS regulatory guidance for 
     further details concerning the change.
       If the 4.2% rate is later extended for the full year, the 
     $18,350 taxable limit for the first two months would be 
     unnecessary. However, even if subsequent legislation extends 
     the 4.2% rate for the full year, employers would still have 
     to make costly programming changes to accommodate the 6.2% 
     tax rate on wages in excess of $18,350 paid prior to March.


                            Recommendations

       1. We recommend that Congress omit Section 101 from H.R. 
     3630 and not prospectively extend the reduced tax rate for 
     the first two months of 2012. Instead, we would suggest that 
     the Congress enact the reduced tax rate at a later date, but 
     make the change retroactive to January 1. For example, a 4.2% 
     employee Social Security tax rate enacted on February 15, 
     2012 should still be retroactively effective on January 1, 
     2012. Virtually all payroll systems are built to self-correct 
     Social Security taxes, so employers would automatically 
     accommodate a late but retroactive change, automatically 
     refunding to each employee any over-withholding from early 
     2012 payrolls. The same tax rate and taxable wage limit 
     should apply for the full calendar year.
       If this is not feasible, we recommend that the Social 
     Security Taxable Wage limit of $18,350 be removed from H.R. 
     3630. If the reduced tax rate is later extended through 2012, 
     this would likely avoid the substantial reprogramming of 
     payroll systems that would otherwise be necessary. If the 
     reduced tax rate is not subsequently extended, the proposed 
     taxable wage limit of $18,350 could be established in later 
     legislation. This would require a recalculation and 
     collection of additional tax later in the year, but given the 
     lack of time permitted for reprogramming systems, most 
     employers will already need to collect any additional tax 
     through adjustments later in the year.
       If neither of the options is feasible, it would mitigate 
     the difficulty moderately to apply the reduced rate to the 
     entire calendar quarter; i.e., through March 31. We recognize 
     that this would represent a substantial change, and its 
     impact in facilitating programming would be relatively minor.
       A more detailed explanation of the difficulties inherent in 
     the current Section 101 is attached. Please contact me if you 
     have any questions or if we can be of service. We appreciate 
     this opportunity to advise congressional policymakers as to 
     the impact of H.R. 3630.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Pete Isberg,

                                                         President
     National Payroll Reporting Consortium, Inc.
                                  ____



                            Taxpayer Impact

       As a ballpark number, according to IRS Statistics of 
     Income, over 18 million returns were filed for Tax Year 2008 
     with more than $100,000 in Adjusted Gross Income, or about 13 
     percent of all returns. Individuals earning over $110,100 
     annually are likely to be affected by the 6.2% Social 
     Security rate for January and February.
       Taxpayers who are paid more than $18,350 in the first two 
     months of the year could be confused or upset by application 
     of the higher tax rate. For example, an individual who is 
     laid off in January may receive a lump-sum severance payout 
     of $50,000, which may be the bulk of their income in 2012. 
     Nevertheless, they would pay $633 more in Social Security 
     taxes than had they simply received the same income over a 
     six month period, or later in the year.
       If the OASDI rate of 4.2% is ultimately extended through 
     2012, those who are paid over $18,350 prior to March will 
     have paid at the higher rate due to the timing of their 
     compensation, whereas someone who earns the same amount for 
     2012 but receives less than $18,350 in the first two months 
     of the year would pay at the 4.2% rate through 2012.


                         Timing of Compensation

       The limitation creates new incentives for employers and 
     employees to shift compensation earlier or later in the year 
     (depending on their guess as to whether the 4.2% OASDI rate 
     may be extended for the full year). Some taxpayers receive 
     significant bonuses, commissions or other lump-sum 
     compensation in January. Some employers and/or employees may 
     have discretion over when such compensation is paid (e.g., 
     exercise of stock options).
       If employers and/or taxpayers believe that a reduced OASDI 
     rate of 4.2% will ultimately be extended, they may defer 
     wages over $18,350 until after February. If the IRS sought to 
     challenge such a result, they would need to ask the employer 
     for details as to the timing of wages paid.


                            Employer Impact

       To accommodate a new Social Security Taxable Wage limit of 
     $18,350, to which a reduced 4.2% rate would apply through 
     February 29, 2012, payroll systems would need to be modified 
     to calculate, withhold and store separately:
       Social Security Wages paid through February 29 up to 
     $18,350
       Social Security Wages paid through February 29 over $18,350 
     but less than $110,100
       Social Security Wages paid after February 29 up to $110,100
       Social Security tax on wages paid through February 29 up to 
     $18,350 ( 4.2%)
       Social Security, tax on wages paid through February 29 over 
     $18,350 but less than $110,100 ( 6.2%)
       Social Security tax on wages paid after February 29 up to 
     $110,100 ( TBD%)


                                 Issues

       The separate reporting implied would require businesses to 
     expand payroll databases and modify programs with 
     insufficient lead time. January 2012 payrolls are already 
     being processed in late December. It is likely that many 
     software developers, service providers and employers would 
     not be able to modify payroll software in time for January or 
     February payrolls. This could lead to difficult situations 
     later in the year as employers sort out what should have been 
     collected, and in some cases collect additional taxes, and 
     determine how to amend employment tax returns.
       Employers might not be able to collect additional taxes 
     from workers who have subsequently changed jobs, and could 
     also be subject to substantial IRS underpayment penalties if 
     they are unable to calculate, withhold and pay the higher 
     OASDI amounts in January and February.


    Impact to the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security 
                             Administration

       The IRS may not be able to quickly produce guidance 
     necessary to enable appropriate design of such systems. 
     Businesses and software developers may have to guess as to 
     what the IRS may require in terms of recordkeeping and 
     reporting. It would be very costly if developers made 
     assumptions as to what reporting the IRS might require, and 
     the IRS announced something different. The IRS would likely 
     need to change Forms 941 and W-2 to require separate 
     reporting of the same information:

[[Page H9967]]

       Social Security Wages paid through February 29 up to 
     $18,350
       Social Security Wages paid through February 29 over $18,350 
     but less than $110,100
       Social Security Wages paid after February 29 up to $110,100
       Social Security tax on wages paid through February 29 up to 
     $18,350 ( 4.2%)
       Social Security tax on wages paid through February 29 over 
     $18,350 but less than $110,100 ( 6.2%)
       Social Security tax on wages paid after February 29 up to 
     $110,100 ( TBD%)


                                 Issues

       The IRS may not be able to change Form 941 for the quarter 
     ended March 31 in time. If this occurs, businesses may need 
     to amend their returns, or the IRS may need to modify 
     subsequent tax forms to permit adjustments, further 
     complicating tax forms and reconciliation systems.
       There is also insufficient space on Form W-2 for such 
     information. Consequently, Form W-2 would need to be 
     significantly expanded, complicating the 2012 tax season (in 
     2013) for taxpayers and tax preparers.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Let me put this very simply: this is a dishonest 
procedure. This is a ruse to avoid a straight up-or-down vote on the 
Senate bill and the 2-month extension.
  Why not hold a straight vote, as indeed called for under regular 
order? That's the regular order. Because the Republican majority is 
afraid of a straight vote. They're afraid some Republicans would vote 
``yes,'' and the Senate bill would pass and the President would sign 
it, and it would become law today. And they don't want other 
Republicans on record voting against a payroll tax cut. That is the 
epitome of a ruse.
  Thirty-nine Republican Senators--39, all but a handful--voted for the 
bill before us. But what has happened since Saturday's bipartisan 
Senate bill that Speaker Boehner said was a good deal? Well, the 
sailors staged a mutiny and the captain decided to surrender. He 
decided to join the mutiny to keep the ship from coming to port. But 
the problem is that on board are millions of passengers waiting to 
dock.
  This chart shows the number of passengers: 160 million Americans 
would see their taxes increased; 2.3 million Americans on board looking 
for work would lose their critical unemployment benefits; and 48 
million seniors--Americans on Medicare--will have access to their 
doctors they know and they trust jeopardized.
  So I want it clear for these people, all of these people: the 
Republican vote today is a vote to nowhere. Dick Lugar said that. I'm 
hopeful that there are a majority of Republicans and Democrats today 
who will proceed because it seems to me it is the best for the country, 
as well as for all the individuals who are affected.
  Another Republican Senator from Massachusetts: ``The House 
Republicans' plan to scuttle''--that's the correct word--``the deal to 
help middle class families is irresponsible and wrong. The refusal to 
compromise now threatens to increase taxes on hardworking Americans and 
stop unemployment benefits for those out of work. We cannot allow rigid 
partisan ideology and unwillingness to compromise stand in the way of 
working together for the good of the American people.''
  And a third Republican Senator, Senator Heller, a former colleague 
here of Nevada: ``There's no reason to hold up the short-term extension 
while a more comprehensive deal is worked out.''
  And I want to quote a statement from Treasury about the notion that 
the 2-month extension cannot be implemented:
  ``While any short-term extension is bound to create some 
administrative complexities, it is feasible to implement the bipartisan 
Senate bill''--this is Treasury that is in charge of implementation of 
this--``and the Treasury Department will work with employers to ensure 
the smoothest possible implementation. In the current economic 
situation, any such complications will be outweighed by the economic 
benefits of ensuring that taxes do not go up on 160 million Americans 
starting on January 1.''
  I would like to place the entire statement in the Record.

       Statement from Jenni LeCompte, Assistant Secretary for 
     Public Affairs, United States Treasury Department: ``Everyone 
     agrees that a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut 
     would have been preferable, which is why the Administration 
     has long advocated an extension for the entirety of 2012. 
     Unfortunately, in the waning days of this session of 
     Congress, Members were unable to reach agreement on the 
     details of a year-long extension that could generate strong 
     bipartisan support. The best they could do was the two-month 
     extension passed by a vote of 89-10 in the Senate on 
     Saturday.
       ``While any short-term extension is bound to create some 
     administative complications, it is feasible to implement the 
     bipartisan Senate bill, and the Treasury Department will work 
     with employers to ensure the smoothest possible 
     implementation. In the current economic situation, any such 
     complications will be outweighed by the economic benefits of 
     ensuring that taxes do not go up on 160 million Americans 
     starting on January 1st.''

                              {time}  1130

  I want to close with what Harry Reid said. Take it seriously. This is 
on what 39 Republicans and 50 Democrats voted for, the bill you will 
not let us vote on:
  ``I have always sought a yearlong extension. I've been trying to 
forge one for weeks.'' He could have said for months. ``And I'm happy 
to continue negotiating one once we have made sure middle class 
families will not wake up to a tax increase on January 1. So, before we 
reopen negotiations on a yearlong extension, the House of 
Representatives must protect middle class families by passing the 
overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise that Republicans negotiated and 
was approved by 90 percent of the Senate.''
  You are snubbing a bipartisan compromise. You are jeopardizing the 
lives of millions of taxpayers, millions of the unemployed, and 
millions of seniors. To keep harmony within your ranks, you are 
creating the possibility of immense discord within the United States of 
America. We're not going to let you do it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, taxpayers, small businesses, and health care 
providers need certainty and predictability to plan for the future. 
Unfortunately, the bill that's come back to us from the other Chamber 
makes our usual habit of only 1-year long extensions look responsible 
by comparison.
  The Senate bill extends a number of key policies, including the patch 
preventing a steep cut to doctors' Medicare payments, for just 2 
months.
  Mr. Speaker, we've been down this road before. Last year, under the 
previous majority, Congress passed five separate extensions of Medicare 
physician payments, mostly for just a month or two. Several times these 
patches missed the deadline, meaning payment cuts took effect and then 
had to be reversed.
  The failure to responsibly address the SGR created an unprecedented 
amount of chaos and confusion, both for doctors and the Medicare 
agency. House Republicans have been determined not to let this happen 
again. That's why we passed a fully paid-for 2-year fix.
  The American people are tired of Congress wasting time on political 
stunts and waiting till the last minute to cobble together half 
measures.
  Mr. Speaker, we still have 2 weeks before the end of the year to get 
this right, and there's no reason to think we'll do better in 2 months. 
I urge my colleagues to support the motion to go to conference so we 
can get a responsible solution.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to a very senior member of our 
committee, the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. I am amazed at the ability of the majority to change its 
position so fast. Sometimes I wish Democrats had the ability to do 
this. It wasn't too long ago that there was objection for the taxpayers 
holiday because of the impact on Social Security. Then there was 
objection to the unemployment insurance because people on the other 
side said that people wouldn't go look for a job, that they would just 
stay home and watch television and receive the check. And of

[[Page H9968]]

course, no one can deny that the doctors that give care to 48 million 
people deserve compensation for what they do.
  But, being here as long as I have, I can see how, in the majority, a 
handful of people will try to prove to their constituents that they're 
not marching in line with regular order; that they didn't come down 
here just to go along with the Senate or their leadership. And it's 
kind of rough to be a part of a party that is so widely split.
  I had only hoped that they could come up with a better excuse than 
the fact that 2 months is not enough time to prevent an increase in the 
taxes of so many, 160 million people. And I know that everyone in this 
Chamber knows that if the American people that will suffer such a 
painful, insensitive act were to be asked, would you want it for 2 
months, and then have the Congress to extend it? Would you take that? 
Or would you want it to be for 1 year and the possibility of getting 
absolutely nothing?
  That is such a fearful, such a cruel thing to do, to gamble with 
other people's ability to be able to enjoy this holiday season as best 
they can. And so, I don't think that there will be any winners in 
what's going on today. But I hope that the regular Republicans would be 
able to see their way clear.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. West).
  Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  You know, last week we voted to have a 1-year extension of a payroll 
tax holiday. Last week we voted to have a 1-year extension of 
unemployment insurance with reforms. Last week we voted to have a 2-
year extension of the Sustained Growth Rate for Medicare recipients and 
the doctors that provide that care.
  Last week we voted for certainty, and we voted to restore confidence. 
We voted for a measure that was paid for, that will have no detriment 
or negative outcomes to Social Security. Last week we voted for job-
creating policies and a bill that had 10 to 12 Obama-approved 
provisions.
  We are not afraid to vote. And if you don't want to accept this 
measure, then continue to vote ``no,'' just the same as our colleagues 
from across the aisle last week voted ``no.'' They voted ``no'' against 
what President Obama wanted; they voted ``no'' against what Senator 
Harry Reid said he wanted; they voted ``no'' against what Senator Chuck 
Schumer said he wanted.
  The Senate sent us back a 2-month extension which is irresponsible 
and cannot be implemented, and it reflects abject incompetence.
  I urge all of my House colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to 
disagree with the irresponsible Senate amendment and move to 
conference. Or do we just want to continue to see the American people 
suffer?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDermott asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, a famous speech started, ``We will little 
note or long remember what we say here today.'' But the Bible says, 
``By your deeds ye shall know them.''
  Now, the Republicans have said that it's Christmastime. Kids are 
hanging their socks all over the world. And they're all getting up and 
hoping there will be something in that sock on Christmas Day. And the 
Republicans have something to put in it. They have a lump of coal.
  They're going to say to 160 million people, we're going to boost your 
taxes. Here's your Christmas gift, right?
  They're going to say to 2.5 million unemployed people, no 
unemployment benefits because it's only for 2 months and we can't--
there's every excuse in the book you can give, but when they get up on 
Christmas there's going to be coal in their socks.
  The working poor of this country are counting on that tax break. 
They've gone out and bought gifts for their kids, and they think 
they're going to pay for them because they have this tax reduction. And 
you're taking it away from them after they've spent the money on the 
Christmas gifts. That's your lump of coal to the middle class.
  Now, for the seniors, the lump of coal is, we're not going to pay the 
doctors. We're going to cut the doctors by 25 percent. And doctors are 
going to say, I'm going to limit the number of seniors.
  Remember the lump of coal in November of 2012, folks. They gave it to 
you.

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority 
leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight's the first night of Chanukah and Christmas is 
fast approaching for families across America.
  And what do families see coming out of Washington? Dysfunction and 
half of Congress unwilling to do its job. Mr. Speaker, we were elected 
to work for the best interests of the American people. In this tough 
economy, middle class Americans and working families need to know that 
their taxes won't be going up at any point next year.
  So far the House has passed a bipartisan year-long plan to ensure 
that taxes do not go up. The Senate, on the other hand, has passed a 2-
month plan. According to experts, the 2-month plan is simply 
unworkable. Families, employers, and workers can't live their lives 
month-to-month. Washington needs to stop adding confusion and more 
uncertainty to people's lives.
  I think we can all agree that the 2-month concept doesn't make a 
whole lot of sense. Mr. Speaker, bottom line, a 2-month patch is 
irresponsible. That's why the House is taking a stand. We believe all 
Americans deserve certainty. We want a year-long extension of the 
payroll tax cut which will prevent a tax increase on every American 
with a job.
  Luckily, Mr. Speaker, everyone claims to agree. In fact, the 
President himself said it would be inexcusable not to extend the 
payroll tax cut for a year. The leader of the Senate says that we 
should be working on extending the payroll tax for a year, but only 
after the new year.
  Mr. Speaker, a great Virginian once said, ``Never put off to tomorrow 
what you can do today.'' That man was Thomas Jefferson.
  Let us dedicate ourselves to that spirit. People across our great 
country are tired of hearing why Washington cannot do things. They're 
seeing day in and day out that Washington is not working together, but 
we have the ability to give them some hope. Let's show the American 
people that there's a reason to believe that we can work together and 
deliver results.
  Truth is, we're not far apart on this issue. The negotiators got 
extremely close. We owe some stability and good tax policy to the 
hardworking people of this country, not more gimmicks and political 
games.
  Today, this House will vote to go to conference and work these 
differences out in regular order. We need to come together in a 
responsible manner to find common ground where we can accomplish 
everyone's goal of a year-long payroll tax extension.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why the House, the Senate, and the 
President cannot spend the next 2 weeks working to get that done. 
America will be waiting.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our 
committee, the gentleman from the great State of Massachusetts (Mr. 
Neal).
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, we would be very happy in this institution if 
just the Speaker of the House and the majority leader could work 
together.
  There was a deal over the weekend. The Speaker of the House accepted 
the Senate's version of that agreement only to discover in a conference 
call that he had to back down. The chairman of the Ways and Mean 
Committee, my friend, he doesn't believe what they're doing here for 
one moment. They're courting disaster.
  This is the season of Advent and Christmas for Christians. Chanukah 
begins today. It is the quest for light in our lives, to enlighten the 
American people as to what is taking place here today; 160 million 
Americans are going to lose this tax cut. Organized labor and 
management, they do this all the time. You have a cooling-off period. 
You get to a more benign time, and you negotiate in good faith.
  You've seen what's happened here. A radical element has seized the 
Republican Party. The Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Brown, is on 
the

[[Page H9969]]

front page of the Boston Globe today criticizing his own party. Dean 
Heller criticizing his own party. Richard Lugar criticizing his own 
party.
  We're arguing today about unemployment benefits in this season for 
members of the American family who are going to lose those benefits. 
We're arguing about a tax cut for middle-income Americans today, 160 
million strong; for doctors who care for the most vulnerable amongst 
us, the Medicare patients over their reimbursement rates.
  When you consider what Republicans did during the Bush years with 
those tax cuts for wealthy people, they never flinched for one moment. 
The rich were rich, and they weren't going to take it anymore. And they 
were going to reinforce that idea--cut taxes 10 times in 10 years for 
the wealthiest among us. We should be voting on what the Senate did. No 
chicanery.
  Put that motion in front of us today, and let's have an up-or-down 
vote and then explain it to the American people.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. President, Senate Democrat leaders, don't 
vacation until you finish your job. Families and small businesses need 
tax relief for a full year, not just for 2 months.
  The House, we've already done our job. We've already passed a full 1-
year extension of the payroll tax holiday. We've included unemployment 
reforms for those who are out of work, paying our local doctors fairly 
in Medicare for a full 2 years, unlocking the Keystone pipeline, and 
cutting spending to completely pay for it.
  We've done our job.
  But the Democrat-led Senate shortchanged the American public by 
rushing through a partial 2-month extension and then hurrying home for 
their Christmas vacations. That's irresponsible. Families and small 
businesses need to be able to plan with confidence for a full year, not 
just 2 measly months.
  You said, Mr. President, just last week, that the American people 
deserve a 1-year bill. Our Democratic friends said a 1-year bill. The 
Democrats in the Senate said a 1-year bill. Well, House Republicans are 
going to hold you to your word by moving forward today to a conference 
committee to work out the differences. We're going to work it out--not 
next year, not when you get around to it, but now. That's the next step 
in the constitutional process, and we House Republicans are willing to 
work through the holidays to make sure we get the job done for the 
American public.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members that 
remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to others in 
the second person.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, a very 
distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Lewis.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and my 
colleague, Mr. Levin, for yielding.
  If we go home without passing the bipartisan Senate bill, we disgrace 
ourselves and this Congress. We are out of time. We cannot go into this 
holiday season without helping our unemployed brothers and sisters. We 
cannot keep our seniors from seeing their doctors. We cannot allow 
taxes to go up for millions of Americans.
  What is happening here today is shameful, it is a disgrace, it is 
unreal, it is unbelievable. We can do better.
  If we fail today, how will you face your neighbor, your family, who 
are suffering? Where is your compassion? Where is your heart? Where is 
your soul? I, sir, vote ``no'' on this motion and pass the Senate 
bipartisan bill.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. CAMP. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Conference chairman, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we all need to be reminded of why we're here in the 
first place.
  We're here because the President's economic policies have failed. 
They've failed this Nation. Ever since he was elected, unemployment has 
been at, near, or above 9 percent. And the people suffer. So that's why 
I believe almost every Member of this body believes that we must extend 
the payroll tax holiday.
  That's not the debate, Mr. Speaker.
  What is most curious, though, is our President. Our President has 
said it would be inexcusable for Congress not to further extend this 
middle class tax cut for the rest of the year. He didn't say 60 days. 
He said the rest of the year. The Democratic leader has said that she 
intends to fight to extend these provisions for a full year.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I guess I'm confused.
  I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say they want to do 
this for a year. They say they want to do it for a year, but they're 
just not willing to vote to do it for a year. That's most curious, Mr. 
Speaker. I don't think I understand it. That's what the President asked 
for. It's what the American people deserve. They don't want us to punt 
the ball. They want us to do our job. So there is no point of 
contention on whether or not this should be extended.
  But the question is: Are we going to do it for a full year, or are we 
going to punt the ball down the field and, once again, disappoint the 
American people?
  Here is the next point of contention:
  We stand ready to work over the holidays to get this done. That's the 
question. Are you willing to work over the holidays, or are you not 
willing to work over the holidays? The American people, most of them, 
are going to have to work over the holidays. Why shouldn't we be 
willing to do this?
  Mr. Speaker, I guess it's just curious how many people seem to be 
unaware that there is this thing called a ``conference committee.'' 
Since the dawn of the Republic, these are how differences are settled 
between the House and the Senate. If you don't remember your Civics 
101, and maybe if you have small children like I do, you can go back 
and watch the Schoolhouse Rock video. It's very clear. All we're asking 
is that the Democrats appoint conferees and negotiate in good faith--
except the Senate Democrat leader said he wouldn't do it, and the House 
Democrat leader said she wouldn't do it.
  So it kind of begs the question, Mr. Speaker: Do they want to make 
laws that benefit the American people in a time of need, or do they 
want to perpetuate a campaign issue that maybe they believe helps their 
campaigns? That's really the question.
  Then last but not least, we ought to pass laws that actually work 
around here. ABC News reported last night: ``Holiday Passed by Senate, 
Pushed by President, Cannot Be Implemented Properly, Experts Say.''
  Well, isn't that interesting.
  The National Payroll Reporting Consortium that handles payroll for 
about a third of the private economy said that this ``could create 
substantial problems, confusion and cost, affecting a significant 
percentage of U.S. employers and employees.''
  The Associated Builders and Contractors, the people who actually go 
out and build things in America, have said: ``This sort of temporary 
fix underscores Congress' uneven, ad hoc approach toward the economy, 
and causes more harm than good for America's job creators.'' The 
leading building trade association in the Nation said the Senate's 60-
day plan will cause more harm than good.
  Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have passed a good and reasonable 
bill. It's for 1 year. It does what the President asks us to do. It 
does what the American people ask us to do. It's actually paid for. It 
doesn't increase the deficit, and it blocks tax increases. I don't know 
how my friends on the other side of the aisle think we're going to 
create jobs with temporary tax increases with permanent tax increases. 
It doesn't happen.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to another 
member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from California, 
Xavier Becerra.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My friends, we've seen this movie before. House Republicans, once 
again, are driving our government and our economy to the edge of the 
cliff, and this time they've placed 160 million workers and 48 million 
seniors in the front seat of that car.
  House Republican leaders are refusing to allow 435 Members of this 
House

[[Page H9970]]

to vote on a bipartisan proposal that was passed by 89 out of 100 
Senators next door. My Republican colleagues know that this bipartisan 
bill passed by the Senate would pass on this floor and that it would 
save working Americans from having their taxes increased during the 
holidays.
  The truth is the Republicans are feuding amongst themselves. House 
Republicans are fighting with Senate Republicans, and quite frankly, 
they're fighting with Republicans throughout this country, because a 
majority of them supports the President's payroll tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, the people--Republicans and Democrats 
alike--are way ahead of the politicians. They want us to get our work 
done and get it done now. Let's stop showing the American people B-
rated movies on the floor of the House, and let's pass the Senate 
bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank Chairman Camp for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, before I came to Congress, I was a practicing 
cardiovascular surgeon with many years of experience, and it was not 
unusual to get called out in the middle of the night or on a holiday to 
an emergency. Just like doctors all over this country, we're there 24/7 
to deal with problems.
  Now, I remember distinctly one night--Christmas Eve, in fact. I was 
getting ready to sit down for dinner with my family when I got called 
to see an 85-year-old Cajun gentleman, with a very large family, who 
had a ruptured aneurysm, and he was in shock. I spent the entire night 
operating on this man. We saved his life, long story short.
  We have a duty, an obligation, to our patients. By God, to put 
physicians in a position of seeing a 27, 28 percent cut in 
reimbursement is just untenable. Why? It's not because of the 
physicians. It's because of patients who are going to lose access. 
Medicare beneficiaries, seniors, those with disabilities will lose 
access to care during a situation in which we're already seeing eroding 
access. We have an obligation to act because the consequences are not 
good with regard to all of these provisions we're trying to extend.
  This House passed a bill last week. It was a very responsible bill 
with good reforms, and it gave a 2-year stability period for physicians 
and for those patients who desperately need this care. And what did the 
Senate do? The Senate capitulated. The Senate caved. The Senate 
basically just gave up with contempt for the American people.
  That's what it comes down to.
  They're basically content with allowing confusion and disruption and 
chaos and uncertainty for patients who deserve good, high-quality care. 
They did the same thing to those who depend on these unemployment 
benefits, and they did the same for those who depend on this payroll 
tax cut during this holiday season.
  We're going to pass a bill today that basically says we want to go to 
conference to resolve these differences, and the Senate has an 
obligation to the American people to stand with us and to follow its 
constitutional duty to go to conference in order to resolve these 
disputes, these differences, in a time-honored way.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate has an obligation to the American people. The 
Senate has an obligation to carry out its duty to the American people. 
We can get this right. Let's do it and be done with it, but let's get 
it done and let's get it done right.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 
10\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished 
member of our committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Some say that the House Republican leadership pulled the plug on the 
Senate bipartisan bill because they were afraid of their Republican Tea 
Party freshmen.
  Perhaps.
  But what is clear is that we're not being allowed by the Republican 
leadership to vote on the Senate bill because the Republicans are 
afraid of their moderates, of their independents, of their reasonable 
``unhardliners.''

                              {time}  1200

  The measure of this Congress is that the House Republicans won't act 
until they are forced to as a result of self-imposed, crisis-inducing 
deadlines. Then if they can't get their own way on an agenda that could 
never be passed through regular order in both Chambers and signed by 
the President, they throw a tantrum. And what we're dealing with today: 
a legislative tantrum.
  Now, I don't like the 2-month extension. It has some difficulties and 
uncertainties. But there would be far more uncertainty and difficulty 
if there were a 2-week gap or a 2-month gap where 700,000 people in 
early January will lose their unemployment benefits, 2 million in the 
next 2 months. If we simply would follow regular order, allow a vote on 
the Senate amendment, we could build on this glimmer of bipartisanship 
from the other body. Allow your Members to vote. Who knows where it 
could lead? We actually may be able to solve some of these long-term 
problems.
  Mr. CAMP. I would ask if the gentleman from Michigan would like to 
yield again so that we can even up the time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the gentleman.
  I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our 
committee, the gentleman from the great State of New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
  This is not a fraternity house. This is the House of Representatives. 
Yet what have we wrought? I heard someone, two people say on this 
floor, quoting the President of the United States--they should 
apologize to him immediately--that the President was urging us to vote 
a 1-year plan. He wasn't asking us to vote on your plan for a year. You 
know what he thinks about what you proposed. And it didn't even come up 
in the Senate. In fact, 39 Republicans--that's 82 percent of the entire 
delegation of a Republican Senate--and 89 percent of the total Senate 
voted for this compromise.
  I know you hate the word. ``Compromise'' does not mean that you 
surrender your values or your principles. Compromise is what was the 
basis of the Founding Fathers. That's how we got a Constitution. Nobody 
was happy with that Constitution. They didn't get everything they 
wanted, and you're not going to get everything you want. So you'd 
better get it out of your head right now.
  The majority leader--wonderful cliches--he forgets that only 2 years 
ago a Republican Member of the House sponsored a 2-month payroll tax 
holiday and had 59 cosponsors. We have amnesia, selective amnesia. He 
changed his tune this Saturday. He was against the idea of a short-term 
gimmick. This Saturday he said it's a good deal. ``It's a victory,'' he 
said. He claimed victory. That reminds me of another victory I heard a 
couple of years ago. Once the same Members of this party, in this 
caucus rebelled, the Speaker reversed his course.
  Keeping the payroll tax cut in place as we figure out a way to extend 
it for the year reduces uncertainty among employers, workers, and 
families in my district. And I ask that we reconsider what we're doing 
today.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members that 
remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to others in 
the second person.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. 
Jenkins).
  Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, folks are mad out there. They're mad because what 
Congress is doing--or not doing, in many cases--makes absolutely no 
sense.
  As a CPA, I'll tell you that handling tax policy on a month-to-month 
basis isn't just irresponsible; it's downright crazy. According to the 
nonpartisan National Payroll Reporting Consortium, the cost of 
complying with the 2-month extension proposed by the Senate may 
actually harm many small businesses. In fact, implementing the cuts on 
this short timeline may not even be possible.

[[Page H9971]]

  In addition to being a CPA, I'm also a mom, and I would do just about 
anything to be working out of our Topeka office at this time of year so 
that I could spend evenings with my kids. But agreeing to a tax policy 
that is so short-lived that it costs not just our government but also 
our small businesses big bucks is not one of them.
  The American people are exhausted. They are sick and tired of 
Congress kicking the can down the road on hard decisions. So I ask our 
leaders in the Senate, Are your vacation plans more important than good 
policy? Why will it be easier to negotiate a deal in February than it 
is today? Come back. We still have time. Work with us to do the job we 
were elected to do. Let's make the hard decisions today. Let's extend 
the payroll tax cuts for the entire year, and let's not do it on the 
backs of a generation more focused on Santa right now than they are on 
tax policy.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen) who is the ranking member on the Budget Committee.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
  The American people should understand very clearly what's going on 
here right now, and that is that the Republican majority in this House 
of Representatives is refusing to allow a vote in this House on the 
Senate bipartisan compromise. They are refusing to even allow a vote on 
a bill that received 89 of 100 votes in the Senate, including 85 
percent of the Senate Republicans. What are they so afraid of? It's 
very clear that the Republican leadership is afraid that that same 
bipartisanship that took place in the Senate will take place right here 
in the House because they don't want a bipartisan bill; otherwise, we 
would have a vote on it.
  What we are witnessing today, Mr. Speaker, is the triumph of Tea 
Party extremism over the good of the country. The sad part is, we 
probably shouldn't be surprised because it was just a few months ago 
that the Republican leadership was opposed to extending the payroll tax 
cut at all. They originally said that raising taxes on 160 million 
Americans would be okay, no problem. I have a long list of statements 
from Republican House leaders to that effect.
  Then two things happened: A whole lot of economists told us what was 
common sense; that, in fact, if you raise taxes on 160 million 
Americans, it will hurt the economy. And it also began to sound a 
little strange for our Republican colleagues to be zealously protecting 
tax breaks for special interests and for millionaires while allowing 
tax increases on 160 million Americans. So they changed their story. 
Then it was, We couldn't do this because it was going to hurt the 
Social Security trust fund--that coming from the party that wanted to 
privatize Social Security. And then the Social Security actuary told us 
and the country that it wouldn't take 1 cent from the Social Security 
trust fund. So now we have a whole different story today. Now the same 
folks who were opposed to any continuation of the payroll tax cut say 
they oppose the bipartisan Senate bill because it is only for 2 months, 
and now they are preventing a vote on that bill.
  The consequence is going to be very clear: On January 1, 160 million 
Americans are going to see their payroll taxes increased. At the end of 
the day, the Republican majority here in the House is going to go home. 
They're going to go home. But you know what will remain here? The 
Senate bipartisan bill, because we will never have voted on it. So, at 
any time in the next several weeks, we can all come right back here and 
in a matter of 5 minutes, send that bill to the President's desk, which 
he said he will sign, and make sure that we avoid a payroll tax 
increase on 160 million Americans. Make sure that folks who are 
unemployed through no fault of their own get unemployment compensation; 
make sure that doctors will continue to be paid when they treat 
Medicare patients, so they can serve those patients. It will be sitting 
right here for 3 weeks. Why? Because the Republican majority won't let 
us vote on it.
  I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to my friend, the chairman of 
the Ways and Means Committee, to tell us why you refuse to allow a vote 
on the Senate bipartisan bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say that if Minority Leader Pelosi and Senator Reid 
appoint conferees, there's no reason for taxes to go up.
  With that, I would yield----
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. You didn't answer my question. The question is, Why 
can't we have a vote?
  Mr. CAMP. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan controls the 
time. The gentleman from Maryland is not recognized. The gentleman from 
Maryland shall suspend.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP. I can see why the gentleman is a little bit defensive about 
that.
  With that, I would yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

                              {time}  1210

  Mrs. BLACK. Fixing something for 2 months is not fixing something. 
It's a Band-Aid and it's bad policy. I've been a nurse for over 40 
years, and I'm going to use a medical analogy to illustrate this point.
  If someone were to come into the emergency room where I'm working 
with a medical issue and I said to them: I'll give you a choice; we can 
either fix your problem for 2 months or we can fix your problem for a 
year, I have no doubt that the patient would choose certainty of 1 year 
over 2 months.
  For the past 10 months, I have been visiting individuals and 
businesses in my district, and what I continually hear from them is 
uncertainty is hurting them and it's hurting our economy. Now, the 
House sent a bill to the Senate that contains some certainty, and we 
get back a 2-month Band-Aid.
  In this bill, we have certainty for businesses, certainty for 
doctors, certainty for individual taxpayers, and certainty for our 
seniors. There is a need for a 2-year extension on the Medicare 
reimbursement for our doctors to ensure that seniors receive access to 
care. There is a need for a 1-year payroll holiday for individuals and 
businesses.
  As has already been said, the National Payroll Reporting Consortium, 
which is a nonpartisan group, has expressed concerns to Members of 
Congress that the 2-month payroll tax holiday passed by the Senate and 
supported by the President cannot be implemented properly. We also need 
a 2-year extension or a fix for our unemployment benefits to give 
certainty to businesses and also to individuals.
  Mr. Speaker, I am frustrated that the Senate kicked the can down the 
road one more time for only 2 months after we sent them a bill that was 
not only bipartisan--yes, a bipartisan bill passed by this House--but 
also had good job policies. I came back to D.C. yesterday to do 
something better, a package that creates certainty rather than a 2-
month patch.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished Member, the 
gentlelady from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Don't blame Congress for not working together; blame the House 
Republicans who can't even work with each other. The one and only 
reason this House of Representatives is not voting for the bipartisan 
Senate bill to provide relief to middle class taxpayers, seniors, and 
disabled people on Medicare and jobless Americans is because it would 
pass. That's right. The Republican scam was to bring up the bill 
supported by 90 percent of the Senate and then kill it. But on the way 
to this slaughter, a funny thing happened. Sensible Republicans 
basically said: You want me to vote to abandon millions of middle class 
Americans without the help they need this holiday season? No way.
  So the sanctimonious rhetoric you hear today from the Republicans is 
nothing but talk, baby talk. If they don't get their way exactly, then 
they won't play.
  What they're saying to millions of Americans, saying, Happy Hanukkah 
to middle class Americans who are lighting the first candle tonight and 
won't get their $1,000 tax break; Happy

[[Page H9972]]

New Year to our seniors and people with disabilities who may lose their 
doctor; Merry Christmas to the jobless Americans desperate for work, 
looking for work, who barely survive on their unemployment checks.
  The House Republicans are the grinches who stole your Christmas.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
  Mr. REED. To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it's not a 
$1,000 payroll tax reduction, just as was quoted by my colleague who 
just spoke. The Senate bill is 2 months. It is $160. So let's be clear 
and honest with the American people.
  What we're talking about here in the House of Representatives on our 
side of the aisle today is that we want to do our work. Yes, we want to 
be with our families for Christmas and we want to be home ringing in 
the new year with our family and friends. But you know what, the 
American people deserve better. We are willing to stay here and do the 
work, not do Band-Aid type of policy. Tax policy on a 2-month basis, 
are you kidding me? That is ridiculous.
  We need long-term solutions to our problems in America. We need to 
put the political bickering aside. Two months is not a solution. It's 
dodging responsibility in the Senate.
  And so where I'm at today is I support the underlying bill that we 
stand and rise to support today, and it is a vote. We will have a vote 
to reject the Senate's position with its amendments and its Band-Aid 
policy, and we will send a clear message to the American people that we 
in the House of Representatives are about finding solutions long term--
1, 2 years at a minimum--and we're willing to do the work.
  I call on the Senate to come back to D.C. and finish the job. 
Hardworking taxpayers of America deserve no less than for us to honor 
our oath and our responsibility to govern through solutions, not 
political games.
  Mr. LEVIN. Could the Speaker please verify how much time each side 
has.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 5 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished 
colleague from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in firm opposition 
to this motion to go to conference without a vote on the Senate bill to 
extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits. It is deeply 
disappointing and troubling that we'll be denied the opportunity to 
vote on the Senate's overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise that would 
bring relief to millions of America's working families.
  Now, my Republican colleagues have said: Pass the 1-year bill that 
passed the House last week.
  Well, talk to your Republican colleagues in the Senate. Four times 
the Senate Democrats tried to bring up your bill, and four times a 
Senate Republican objected. Facts are hard.
  If we do not pass this bill, 160 million Americans will face a $1,000 
tax increase as we go into the new year. If we do not act, in my home 
State, 9 million Floridians will see this tax increase next year. If we 
do not act, 2.2 million unemployed Americans will lose their 
unemployment benefits. And if we do not act, 48 million seniors will 
face the specter of having to find new doctors due to cuts to Medicare 
reimbursement rates.
  Like many of my colleagues, I have received countless constituent 
calls, letters, and emails, many of them very personal and emotional.
  Just this morning, I was especially moved by a note from a single 
mom, Christine, with a 3-year-old daughter, from my congressional 
district. She wrote: I am pleading my case to you out of desperation to 
extend unemployment insurance.
  These benefits help her provide food and necessities for her 
daughter. Too many of my colleagues like to paint unemployment 
beneficiaries with one insensitive and cruel brush. This young woman is 
not someone sitting around just collecting government checks. She was 
laid off from her job this fall and has only been on unemployment for a 
couple of months while she looks for another job.
  My constituent's story, while personal and moving, is, unfortunately, 
not a unique one. My Republican colleagues who callously ignore the 
needs of middle class Americans by refusing to vote on the payroll tax 
extension and unemployment benefits are sending the message to millions 
of working families that, despite their efforts to look for and find 
work in this delicate economy, they simply don't care.
  The House Republican leadership needs to allow a straight up-or-down 
vote on the Senate bill which passed 89-10 with strong bipartisan 
support. Clearly, they are afraid it might pass.
  I urge you to listen to the plight of constituents like Christine who 
said: I'm asking that they give people more time to find work by 
pushing these dates back further. I'm having a very hard time trying to 
find work that will accommodate my living expenses for myself and 3-
year-old daughter.
  Christine has only been on unemployment since September. She needs 
our help. Millions of Americans need our help. Pass this bill and stop 
playing politics with people's lives.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield a minute and a half to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.
  What we're talking about here today, Mr. Speaker, is the difference 
between passing a tax policy that would only last 2 months or passing a 
tax policy that lasts the entire year. During this next week and a 
half, while families are sitting at home doing their budget for next 
year, they're going to be making their budget for the entire year 2012, 
not for just 2 months. And yet what the Senate sent over is a plan that 
only kicks the can down road, and we'd be right back here again having 
this same debate in 2 months.
  People are sick and tired of this kind of absurd action from 
Congress. If you look at early civics courses, anybody that takes their 
first civics course knows that when there's a difference between the 
House and the Senate--as there is here--then the two sides appoint 
conferees, they get together and they work out those differences. 
That's what the legislative process is about. And clearly we have a 
difference.
  We think the policy should be for an entire year, as even the 
President has said, and the Senate sent us over a 2-month patch that 
doesn't even fix the problem. In fact, outside groups like the National 
Federation of Independent Businesses said this would hurt small 
businesses. And yet what do we get from the other side? Minority Leader 
Pelosi, Mr. Speaker, said she will not appoint any House Democrats to 
participate in the negotiations. She just said this last night. So in 
the spirit of Christmas, you've got the minority leader saying she's 
just going to take her toys and go home. That's not the responsible 
thing to do.
  Let's stay here, let's get the policy right, let's do our work, and 
let's have the Senate do their work, too, for the American people.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. David Scott.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, and I appreciate the 
opportunity to come down and to say a few words on this.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I'm so glad that the people of this country are 
tuning into what's happening on the floor of this House of 
Representatives. What we are seeing is a great dysfunction in the 
Republican Party in the House of Representatives.
  Here is this situation: the American people are hurting, and 160 
million American people do not need their taxes to go up. There are 2.2 
million American people who are without unemployment benefits who will 
have those unemployment benefits not extended. And there are seniors, 
48 million of them, who will not be able to go and visit their doctors. 
America is hurting, and what does the Republican Party in the House of 
Representatives want to do? They want to hurt them some more by not 
even allowing a vote on a compromise bill that was passed by the Senate 
with 89 votes, 39 of them members of the Senate Republican Party.
  Ladies and gentlemen, what's at stake here is a failure to 
compromise.

[[Page H9973]]

That is the key. When Hamilton and Jefferson failed to compromise, it 
was John Adams that brought them together. Where would this country be 
if that had not happened? Ladies and gentlemen of America, wake up and 
realize that this is not a party just of Tea Party people, or 
Republicans or Democrats, it's a party of all of us.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman.
  The President of the United States has said it would be inexcusable 
not to extend the payroll tax cut for 1 year. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer 
have said the same thing, as have dozens of other leading Democrats. I 
agree with them and so does a bipartisan majority of the House who last 
week voted to extend the tax cut for 1 year.
  Now why do we support it for 1 year? Because 2 months only gives 
uncertainty to this fragile economy. Uncertainty. Families can't plan, 
businesses can't plan, and jobs can't be created. So why do the 
Democrats want the 2 months? Sadly, because like their Democrat 
colleagues in the Senate, they want to go home. But do you know what? 
There is a 200-year-old mechanism for ironing out Senate and House 
agreements. It's called ``conference committee.''
  Now your leader has decided not to appoint people to this conference 
committee. You want to compromise, that's what this vote is all about. 
We want to compromise. We know we can't get everything we want. But 
unlike the Senate, we're not saying it's our way or the highway. We're 
saying compromise. Vote ``yes'' on this vote. Let's compromise, and 
let's get this done.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, tax cuts delayed are tax cuts denied. Last 
year, just before the holidays, the House Republicans extended the Bush 
tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, no strings attached. And 
this year, Republicans won't even allow a vote to extend middle class 
tax cuts. Republicans want to procrastinate. Democrats want to 
legislate.
  When it comes to millionaires, the Republicans are Santa Claus. For 
the middle class, they are the Grinch. This isn't ``Mission 
Impossible,'' Mr. Speaker. We don't need Tom Cruise to save seniors, 
the middle class and the unemployed. We just need to pass the Senate 
compromise right now. By not allowing an up-or-down vote on this 
bipartisan compromise, the Republicans are raising the curtain on their 
real priorities: millionaires and billionaires.
  Americans don't need any more meetings, and they don't need any more 
debate. They just need us to make sure their taxes do not go up on New 
Year's Day. Today, we can protect the middle class, the seniors, and 
the unemployed by passing this bipartisan compromise right now. Do it 
now.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the 
Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Tiberi).
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, this debate is in many ways surreal--
surreal. I learned in Civics 101 that the House is a coequal branch to 
the Senate. Members on the other side say, well, this is a compromise. 
It's a compromise in the Senate, not the House. The House has spoken. 
The Senate says, my way or the highway.
  Now, I understand that that's how it's kind of become around here, 
and I know there are friends on the other side of the aisle who are 
upset with the Senate when they've done it on other bills when they 
were in the majority.
  This is enough. The American people deserve better. We need to get 
back to regular order. We need to compromise between the House-passed 
bill and the Senate-passed bill. That's the way the Founding Fathers 
wanted it: compromise between the House and the Senate, not between the 
Senate and the Senate. Two months for the American people, that's 
outrageous. They deserve a year, a full year to have a payroll tax 
holiday, not 2 months.
  Come on, ladies and gentlemen, let's send the Senate a message: come 
back to Washington and do your work. Give the American people a year, 
not 2 months.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague that I have no 
further speakers and am prepared to close.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I remember when I was doing arguments before a court and 
the judge would ask me a very salient question that would get to the 
heart of the matter. And that's where we are today. There's this 
question to the Republican majority: If you're so sure of your 
arguments, why not allow a vote on the Senate bill? Otherwise, 
everything you've said is a smoke screen. It's because you're afraid 
you'd lose it, or you don't want some people voting ``no'' on the 
Record. That's really what this is about.
  And there's a second question: If you believe in bipartisanship, why 
not allow a vote on a bipartisan bill in the Senate? I quoted three 
Senators, and three more now have spoken out, Senators Snowe, Wicker 
and Grassley. Senator Grassley says, if it doesn't pass the House 
today, there's a chance the payroll tax holiday will be lost. And 
Senator Wicker says, I'm surprised the House isn't willing to take a 2-
month time-out to do something more lasting.
  So I think the answer is, again, your talk about bipartisanship is 
totally shallow. The previous speaker said that the Senate said, it's 
my way or the highway. No, that isn't accurate. The Speaker of the 
House said to the Senate, get on the road and pass a bill. He never 
said don't do it. He said do it.

                              {time}  1230

  No, the problem is that many people in the House never wanted to 
extend the payroll tax in the first place. And you sent over a bill 
that deleted 40 weeks of unemployment insurance for the millions who 
are looking for work and can't find a job. So today we have no choice 
but to vote ``no'' and insist that this obligation be met in this House 
of Representatives.
  Vote. Vote. Vote on the bill that the Senate passed. Your denial of 
allowing us a vote is a denial to the people of this country who are 
uninsured as of December 1 for unemployment, who need Medicare, and 
also those who need the continuation of the payroll tax cut. That's 
what all of this is about. And anything else is a pure smoke screen 
that all the American people will see through.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CAMP. What we're voting on today is to disagree with what the 
Senate did to our bill. We're voting to disagree to the Senate 
amendments. Once that's adopted, the House message on this bill goes 
back to the Senate, and the Senate then is the only body in possession 
of the bill. And we cannot move forward to resolve the differences 
between the House and the Senate until Leader Reid and Representative 
Pelosi appoint conferees. So we're voting to disagree with the Senate.
  And let me just say, 2 months isn't long enough. You've heard a lot 
of people talk today in this debate. It's embarrassing that we're doing 
tax policy for 2 months. But it's not just House Republicans who think 
we need a longer term extension, it's supporters, including many of our 
Nation's Democratic Governors.
  I received a letter, a letter that actually went to our leaders last 
week, from 16 of the Nation's Governors, Democratic Governors, after we 
approved H.R. 3630. They called for a swift passage of a 1-year 
extension--not 2 months, 1 year. That's what the House bill does. And 
what's more, that's what the Senate bill specifically rejects.
  I urge that we vote to disagree with the Senate amendments and let's 
get on to a conference. Let's resolve this this year so we can make 
certainty in our Code, certainty for all of those people who are out of 
work, and certainty for those seniors who need to see a physician--for 
more than 2 months, but for 2 years.


[[Page H9974]]


                                                December 15, 2011.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Boehner, and 
     Representative Pelosi: We write to urge you to swiftly pass a 
     one-year extension of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation 
     Program (``EUC'') and 100% federal funding of the Extended 
     Benefits (``EB'') Program before they expire on December 31.
       We are extremely concerned about the potential impact of 
     the expiration of these programs on families and our economic 
     recovery as a whole. Unless Congress extends these programs 
     before adjourning for the holidays, nearly 2 million 
     unemployed workers will lose this critical support in January 
     2012 alone. Now is not the time to turn our backs on hard-
     working Americans. Individuals who are laid off through no 
     fault of their own rely on these funds to support their 
     families.
       Extending unemployment insurance is a critical part of our 
     ability to speed up the economic recovery process. 
     Unemployment insurance benefits are immediately injected back 
     into the economy. According to the Congressional Budget 
     Office, federally extended unemployment insurance benefits 
     provide one of the best bangs for the buck in terms of 
     stimulating economic growth.
       Congress has never failed to act on extending federal 
     unemployment insurance benefits when the unemployment rate 
     has exceeded 7.2%, and we must not fail our citizens now.
       We urge immediate action to extend Emergency Unemployment 
     Compensation and 100% federal funds for the Extended Benefits 
     program through the end of 2012.
           Sincerely,
         Governor Pat Quinn, Illinois; Governor John Hickenlooper, 
           Colorado; Governor Jack Markell, Delaware; Governor 
           Steven L. Beshear, Kentucky; Governor Deval Patrick, 
           Massachusetts; Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York; 
           Governor Edmund Gerald Brown, California; Governor 
           Dannel P. Malloy, Connecticut; Governor Neil 
           Abercrombie, Hawaii; Governor Martin O'Malley, 
           Maryland; Governor Mark Dayton, Minnesota; Governor Bev 
           Perdue, North Carolina; Governor John A. Kitzhaber, 
           M.D., Oregon; Governor John deJongh, Jr., Virgin 
           Islands; Governor Peter Shumlin, Vermont; Governor 
           Chris Gregoire, Washington.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate 
Amendment to H.R. 3630, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act 
of 2011.
  Unfortunately, this isn't the legislation we will be voting on today. 
The Majority has decided to side-step that bill, which passed the 
Senate this weekend on a bipartisan 89-10 vote.
  Instead, the House Majority's aim is to reopen negotiations in an 
attempt to force the Senate to include in the bill many poison pill 
provisions, like requiring a high school diploma to receive 
unemployment benefits.
  President Obama has said that the Senate's compromise bill is ``the 
only viable way to prevent a tax hike on January 1.''
  The legislation the Senate passed this weekend, and that we should be 
considering today, would provide for a two-month extension of several 
measures that will help keep our economy moving in the right direction. 
These include extending unemployment benefits, the payroll tax cut, the 
temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) program, and preserving 
the rate of Medicare payments to doctors.
  Let me be clear Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill is a modest proposal at 
best. However, extending these vital measures are necessary to keep our 
economy moving forward and growing.
  Failure to reach agreement is unacceptable. If we fail to pass the 
Senate bill, 700,000 workers in Hawaii will see their paychecks shrink 
and taxes increase in January. Nearly 3,000 people in Hawaii will lose 
their unemployment benefits in January. Some 27,000 Hawaii families 
will lose access to assistance that helps feed their children while 
they seek new jobs. And we will unnecessarily be making it harder for 
doctors to provide the care our seniors deserve.
  Failing to extend the payroll tax and unemployment benefits wouldn't 
just be irresponsible for workers and families--it would actually do 
serious damage to our nation's economic growth.
  In fact, independent economists forecast that failing to extend these 
two measures could cost 1.3 million jobs.
  Of course, the Senate's legislation is far from perfect. I regret 
that we were unable to reach an agreement that would have extended 
these measures for the entire year.
  I also regret the House Majority's insistence on attempting to tie 
these vital provisions to unnecessary and controversial ones.
  I am glad the Senate has sent us a bill that removes some of the most 
offensive poison pills--like slashing extended unemployment benefits to 
40 weeks and ridiculous and probably unconstitutional changes to 
eligibility requirements for those benefits--that passed the House last 
week.
  Despite these changes the Senate bill is very much a compromise. It 
still includes a provision that would unnecessarily rush the 
Administration's review and approval of the controversial 1,700 mile 
long Keystone XL pipeline project.
  I fail to see the benefit of rushing this decision. The President has 
committed to ensuring that the State Department conducts a thorough 
review of this project in order to determine the economic, 
environmental, and public health impact it could have on our nation.
  This is particularly prudent because the proposed route runs from 
Canada to the Gulf Coast--directly through the center of our nation. 
Its proposed route passes through the sensitive Sand Hills in Nebraska 
and over the Ogallala aquifer. This aquifer provides 30 percent of all 
groundwater used for irrigation in the U.S., as well as drinking water 
for millions of Americans.
  The State Department has indicated that the earliest these necessary 
reviews will be completed is 2013. Expediting this review process is 
short-sighted, unwise, and could have serious negative implications for 
future generations and media reports indicate that the Administration 
will not approve the project under this tight timeline.
  So despite this troublesome provision, I had intended to support the 
Senate's bill.
  The Majority's attempt to renegotiate this entire package is a waste 
of time. We should come together to extend the relief that our workers 
and their families deserve and return next year with a new focus on how 
to move our economy forward.
  With the holidays just days away, we owe families in Hawaii and the 
American people at least that much.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Motion to Concur on H.R. 3630 ``Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 
Creation Act of 2011.'' This legislation sends the right message at a 
critical time for Americans.
  The Senate passed a measure this past Saturday that, while not 
perfect, will grant the American people the certainty they need as we 
head into a new year. The Senate Amendment to H.R. 3630 received 
overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate. It passed by a margin of 
89 to 10.
  The Senate version would allow employees to continue to pay a 4.2 
percent tax on wages, and the self-employed would only pay 10.4 
percent; which represents a 2 percentage point tax cut.
  This tax cut would provide a much-needed boost to the economy as 
these tax savings could be used for investment, savings accounts, and 
for the purchase of both goods and services. This kind of commercial 
activity is what will keep the economy moving.
  The Senate version would remove provisions in the bill that implies 
that would stigmatize the unemployed by implying they use illegal 
substances and penalizes those who must choose between paying rent or 
taking job training courses. The Senate Amendment removes the onerous 
unemployment provisions from H.R. 3630. Namely, the provisions that 
would allow states to test those who apply for unemployment benefits 
for illegal drugs and one that would require a GED, a high school 
diploma, or attendance in a course to attain a GED prior to being able 
to qualify for unemployment benefits.
  In addition, the Senate amendment to H.R. 3630 removes a $300 million 
on a special interest provision. The provision, which had passed the 
House, would only help a handful of specialty hospitals while resulting 
in billions of dollars in cuts from community hospitals. The Senate 
Amendment removes this poison pill. In effect, the Senate rejected this 
assault on the elderly, the unemployed, and the middle class.


          RULES COMMITTEE'S LAST MINUTE CHANGE TO THEIR AGENDA

  Last evening the Rules Committee was originally scheduled to convene 
an emergency meeting at 7:05 p.m. The purpose of their meeting was to 
discuss a motion to concur with the Senate amendment to H.R. 3630. I 
arrived at the Rules Committee prepared to give testimony to buttress 
my two amendments to the measure and to give my support to the Senate 
Amendment to H.R. 3630.
  The Committee would not accept my amendments and refused to accept 
testimony; to add insult to injury they delayed the meeting from 7:05 
p.m. to 9:15 p.m. Again, I was prepared to speak on the measure and my 
amendments. To my surprise, the Rules Committee failed to discuss or 
bring up the motion

[[Page H9975]]

to concur with the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3630.
  It is my belief that something must have occurred prior to and 
immediately after the 7:05 p.m. meeting that would drastically change 
Republicans' agenda. Because at 9:15 p.m. they brought up a completely 
different agenda. I am both surprised and disappointed that the 
Committee failed to address this issue head on and rather bent to 
whatever pressures they received prior to meeting on the Senate 
amendment.
  My amendments would have made it clear that hedge fund managers would 
finally be required to pay their due share of carried interest; they 
would be required at minimum to pay the same amount in taxes, as their 
house keepers.
  In addition my second amendment would have ensured that millionaires 
would also pay their fair share of taxes. Because of the actions of the 
Rules Committee I never got the opportunity to express my support for 
these important amendments, nor did I have the opportunity to support 
the Senate amendment because of the drastic changes made to the Rules 
Committee Agenda.


    CERTAIN REPUBLICANS NEVER INTENDED TO SUPPORT A PAYROLL TAX CUT

  There is little doubt that there have been factions within the 
Republican party who have never intended to support a payroll tax cut 
for middle class Americans. When the idea of a payroll tax cut began to 
surface there was an instantaneous reaction against the idea among 
certain conservative Republicans. The behavior of the Rules Committee, 
which changed the agenda at the last minute, is a probable example of 
these internal disagreements.
  Less than two weeks ago a Tea Party Republican made it clear that he 
did not support a payroll tax cut. In order to convince him to support 
H.R. 3630 it seems that other provisions had to be added, provisions 
like the keystone pipeline. This Tea Party Republican made it clear 
``[Republican Leadership] certainly seems to be dragging me kicking and 
screaming to the `yes' line''. Such is the comment of a Member of 
Congress who wants us all to believe that he was undecided on a payroll 
tax cut. I wonder how many promises had to be given before the American 
middle class could be cut a break.
  This position was also shared by a Senator, who is part of Senate 
Republican Leadership. He voted four times against proposals to keep 
the tax holiday. According to this Republican Leader ``We get paid to 
vote . . .'' and he certainly did his duty and voted, he voted against 
payroll tax cuts for the middle class. This would not be an example of 
a person who was less than two weeks ago ready to be swayed.
  Washington Republicans in general found themselves in a quandary. 
Should they support a measure that would have protected provisions in 
Medicare, extended unemployment, and provided a payroll tax cut or 
stick to partisan politics. Washington Republicans apparently did not 
believe that a break, which would have lowered the payroll tax from 6.2 
percent to 4.3 percent would help job growth next year. Then there are 
those who are more concerned with not giving the President a victory. 
The victory would not be for the President, the victory who would be 
for the American people. For the moms and dads who as a result of the 
payroll cut would be able to buy their child a new pair of shoes, place 
an additional meal on the table, or pay their rent.
  It is not a surprise that those Republicans, who dug their heels into 
the ground, long before today, are the very Republicans who are 
allowing the American people to bear the brunt of this stalemate.
  As passed in the House, H.R. 3630 had a list of poison pills which 
would have harmed not only the health of Americans but the health of 
the American economy.


                              UNEMPLOYMENT

  Republicans had targeted the unemployed by slashing 40 weeks of 
unemployment insurance. Such an action would have negatively impacted 
the lives of millions of families. These are the very families who are 
still struggling under the weight of the worst economic downturn since 
the Great Depression. The Senate rejected this assault on the elderly 
too.
  Our failure to act on the Senate amendment to H.R. 3630 would result 
in twenty-two jurisdictions with the highest unemployment rates being 
the hardest hit these states are: My home state of Texas, Alabama, 
California, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Idaho, 
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North 
Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and 
Washington.
  According to a report released by the Department of Labor just two 
weeks ago, 3.3 million Americans would lose unemployment benefits as a 
result of H.R. 3630 compared to a continuation of current law. In my 
home state of Texas alone, 227,381 people will lose their sole source 
of income by the end of January.
  There is nothing normal about this recession. Republicans seem to 
want to blame the unemployed for unemployment. But the truth is there 
are over four unemployed workers for every available job, and there are 
nearly 1 million fewer jobs in the economy today compared to when the 
recession started in December 2007. In our nation's history there has 
never been so many unemployed Americans without work for such a long 
period of time. Republicans are clearly out of touch.
  We must act now to extend unemployment insurance and remove dastardly 
provisions related to drugs and education that do nothing more than 
insult the integrity of the jobless. Currently, 9.8 million people are 
receiving unemployment insurance in some form. We have 11 days to act. 
On Dec. 31, federal unemployment insurance benefits are set to expire, 
which means nearly 2 million will be cut off from unemployment 
insurance early next year if Congress doesn't act now. Congress has 
never allowed emergency unemployment benefits to expire when the 
unemployment rate is anywhere close to its current level of 9.1 
percent.
  For every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, a study found an 
increase in economic activity of two dollars. According to the Economic 
Policy Institute that extending unemployment benefits could prevent the 
loss of over 500,000 jobs. Further, a study by IMP AQ International and 
the Urban Institute found unemployment insurance benefits reduced the 
fall in GDP by 18.3%. This resulted in nominal GDP being $175 billion 
higher in 2009 than it would have been without unemployment insurance 
benefits.
  If Congress fails to act before the end of the year, Americans who 
have lost their jobs through no fault of their own will begin losing 
their unemployment benefits in January. By mid-February, 2.1 million 
will have their benefits cut off, and by the end of 2012 over 6 million 
will lose their unemployment benefits.


           THE IMPACT ON AMERICANS POISON PILLS IN H.R. 3630

  The reforms to unemployment and other provisions that we sent over to 
the Senate, sweeping as they were, may have been lost amid other 
features of the Republican package.


                              Drug Testing

  Under current law, states are not allowed to deny workers 
unemployment insurance for reasons other than on-the-job misconduct, 
fraud or earning too much money from part-time work. The drug testing 
requirement in H.R. 3630 is burdensome and onerous. Unemployment is at 
its highest in twenty-five years, the economy is in a downward spiral, 
millions of people are just getting by and government wants to further 
degrade them.
  A worker advocacy group recently described the drug testing Element 
in the House-passed bill, the ``most disturbing'' part of the 
Republican unemployment reforms. ``Devising new ways to insult the 
unemployed only distracts from the current debate over how to best 
restore the nation's economy to strong footing and the discussion over 
how to best support the unemployed and get them back to work''
  There is no evidence to support that the average person who applies 
for unemployment insurance is an illegal drug user. The inference that 
those who need this benefit must be screened for drugs is offensive. 
Hardworking Americans are depending on a benefit they worked to attain. 
The Senate amendment to H.R. 3630 removes this offensive provision.


                  GED/HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA REQUIREMENT

  In addition, the Senate amendment does not blame the unemployed for 
being unemployed. By this I mean, the version of H.R. 3630 which passed 
the House would deny unemployment benefits to individuals who did not 
have or were not attempting to attain a high school diploma or a GED.
  As supported by House Republicans, H.R. 3630 denies unemployment 
insurance benefits to the most vulnerable workers, those without a high 
school diploma or GEDs, if they can't demonstrate they are enrolled in 
a program leading to a credential. Workers with less than a high school 
diploma are unemployed at significantly higher rates than workers with 
a bachelor's degree (13.2 percent v. 4.4 percent).
  I understand the rationale behind wanting to advance the skills of 
our nation's work force. Believe me the hardships faced by those who 
have not attained a GED or high school diploma are indisputable. The 
labor force participation rate for persons without a high school 
diploma is 20 percentages points lower than the labor force 
participation rate for high school graduates.
  Nationally, approximately 70 percent of all students graduate from 
high school, but African-American and Hispanic students have a 55 
percent or less chance of graduating from high school.
  If this measure passes as written, African- Americans and Hispanics 
who are already the hardest hit by this economic downturn will now lose 
access to employment benefits at a greater rate, solely based upon 
their educational attainment. This just does not seem fair.

[[Page H9976]]

  Only 52 percent of students in the 50 largest cities in the United 
States graduate from high school. That rate is below the national high 
school graduation rate of 70 percent, and also falls short of the 60 
percent average for urban districts across the Nation. Over his or her 
lifetime, a high school dropout earns, on average, about $260,000 less 
than a high school graduate, and about $1 million less than a college 
graduate.
  I vehemently disagree with how H.R. 3630 chooses to address 
increasing the skills of our workforce. I do not believe we should 
blame those who for a variety of reasons were not able to attain a high 
school diploma or GED. We should not punish them by excluding them from 
benefits that they have earned! We should be focused on programs to 
encourage and retrain our workforce. Programs like those offered by 
organizations like the National Urban League.


                                Medicaid

  My colleagues on the other side in H.R 3630 had singled out Medicare 
premium increases that would have permanently increase seniors' costs 
by $31 billion. The Senate Amendment addresses the Medicare Sustainable 
Growth Rate (SGR), extending physician payment rates and preventing a 
27.4% cut through February 29th; and it addresses Medicare and Medicaid 
Extenders policies through February 29th as well. It also includes a 
simple extension of TANF through February 29th. The Congressional 
Budget Office estimates changes to Medicare under the Republican budget 
plan will triple the cost for new beneficiaries by 2030 and increase 
costs for current recipients, including the 2.9 million people in Texas 
who received Medicare in 2010.
  H.R. 3630 would result in significant changes to Medicaid, 
threatening healthcare resources for the 60 million people, half of 
them children that rely on this program to stay healthy. A block grant 
for funding or a cap on federal Medicaid spending would increase the 
cost for states and the low income families who benefit from the 
program.
  Harris County has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in 
Texas. Limits and cuts to Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the 
citizens of Texas's 18th District. Harris County averages between 
500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid recipients monthly, thousands of people 
who may not have access to healthcare under this budget.
  If there is a single federal program that is absolutely critical to 
people in communities all across this nation at this time, it would be 
unemployment compensation benefits. Unemployed Americans must have a 
means to subsist, while continuing to look for work that in many parts 
of the country is just not there. Families have to feed children.
  Personal and family savings have been exhausted and 401(Ks) have been 
tapped, leaving many individuals and families desperate for some type 
of assistance until the economy improves and additional jobs are 
created. The extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term 
unemployed is an emergency. You do not play with people's lives when 
there is an emergency. We are in a crisis. Just ask someone who has 
been unemployed and looking for work, and they will tell you the same.
  I am committed to producing tangible results in suffering communities 
through legislation that creates jobs, fosters minority business 
opportunities, and builds a foundation for the future. We cannot now, 
or ever, allow partisan politics to keep us from addressing the needs 
of American families, the unemployed and seniors. I encourage my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to drop these harmful policy 
riders and support the Senate amendment to H.R. 3630.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, just last week I came to the floor and spoke 
to the need for this body to prevent a tax increase for 160 million 
American workers. Yet today, the House Majority is actually voting to 
raise taxes for middle class families. Under their plan taxes go up on 
January 1, 2012 for 160 million workers, unemployment benefits expire 
and seniors lose access to their doctors. I am voting to prevent that 
from happening. They can claim all they want they support tax relief 
for middle class families, but today they are rejecting the compromise 
that passed the U.S. Senate with broad bipartisan support and that 
could be signed into law by President Obama. Instead of helping pass 
this real bipartisan compromise, the House Majority is claiming they 
want to help ordinary people even as their actions show otherwise. The 
American people will pay the price with higher taxes next year. Members 
of the Majority opposed this tax cut for middle class Americans a year 
ago and they are even more opposed to its extension now.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, what has happened today would be 
comical if it weren't so damaging to our nation's middle-class.
  Mr. Speaker, the American People need to know the facts:
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker is that this body passed a tax cut bill that 
they knew would not make it through the other body
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the other body, in about as bipartisan 
a manner as this 112th Congress has ever seen, voted overwhelmingly to 
pass a two month extension of the payroll tax cut so that taxes would 
not go up for millions of Americans on the 1st of January.
  The fact is, instead of passing this common-sense legislation which 
would have bought time for a comprehensive full year extension of the 
payroll tax cut to be negotiated, the GOP-led House would not allow a 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the Majority has instead decided to kill the payroll tax 
cut altogether and not buy Congress time for a comprehensive deal.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that when it's time to let tax cuts for 
millionaires and billionaires to expire, the Republicans will show the 
same callous disregard they have shown our nations struggling middle-
class.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I will vote today against this motion to 
go to conference with Senate and in support of the two-month payroll 
tax cut extension. While it is not perfect, it is a reasonable 
compromise that will help people make ends meet while we continue to 
work on a longer-term solution.
  The fact is that Democrats and Republicans have been working at 
finding such a solution for several weeks, and this is the best we can 
do at this time. As we have done at other times this year, notably with 
the debt limit vote in August, we have an opportunity to do something 
for the good of the country on a short-term basis. While this is not 
ideal, I believe approving a two-month extension is better than letting 
the payroll tax reduction and unemployment benefits expire while 
Medicare reimbursements to doctors are cut dramatically, which will 
have negative effects for our fragile economic recovery.
  Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan compromise was overwhelmingly approved 
in the Senate and includes several provisions that Republicans worked 
hard to include, such as requiring President Obama to make a decision 
on the Keystone pipeline within 60 days. It will provide relief to 
individuals and families who need it and support for the overall 
economy. This is not the time to draw lines in the sand. I urge my 
Republican colleagues to let the House consider the two-month extension 
today and to vote in support of it. Then we can continue to work on how 
to extend this relief through the duration of 2012.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I oppose motions regarding a conference 
because I do not support any of the costly proposals to extend the 
temporary payroll ``holiday,'' which destabilizes the Social Security 
Trust Fund and does nothing to enact the needed long-term structural 
reforms necessary to right our fiscal state of ship.
  Our country is going broke. The national debt is over $15 trillion. 
It is projected to reach $17 trillion next year and $21 trillion in 
2021. We have annual deficits of approximately $1 trillion. We have 
unfunded obligations and liabilities of $62 trillion.
  The Social Security Actuary has said that by 2037 the trust fund will 
be unable to pay full benefits. This means that everyone will receive 
an across the board cut of 22 percent, regardless of how much money 
they paid into the system.
  Washington is dysfunctional. After months of passionately debating 
the importance of reducing the deficit, the President and Congress are 
now advocating for a policy that's barely, if at all, improved our 
economic outlook and further contributes to our crushing debt burden.
  My floor statement from December 13, which I have reposted on my Web 
site, further explains my opposition to the underlying legislation.
  During his 1796 farewell address, George Washington admonished his 
fellow countrymen: ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon 
posterity the burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.'' The 
Congress should heed his advice.
  I voted ``no'' on this policy last December. I voted ``no'' on this 
policy last week. And I vote ``no'' today.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment 
to H.R. 3630. Working Americans cannot wait another minute for Congress 
to make up its mind and act. The country and its people are ill-served 
by the House leadership's inability to make up its mind. The economy 
and its future, as well as our credit rating, are being severely 
impaired by leadership's failure to lead in finding a solution to this 
problem and Republicans' followership to follow and support such 
solution.
  While the Senate's solution is less than perfect, it's a desperately 
needed start. Our failure to prevent an increase in payroll taxes and 
the expiration of unemployment benefits will cut the legs out from 
under our country's economic recovery.

[[Page H9977]]

  To be clear, I am not at all comforted by the Senate's compromise on 
extending unemployment benefits. By not addressing the contentious 
``look-back'' issue, it is all but certain that states with 
persistently high unemployment rates that have improved very 
marginally--like my home state of Michigan--will all of a sudden find 
themselves ineligible for emergency federal benefits. As far as I'm 
concerned, that's like taking a sick person's medicine away because 
he's gotten slightly better.
  That's not to say the bill is all bad. The Senate amendment to H.R. 
3630 also extends for two months the critical section 508 hospital 
reclassification and will allow us more time to find a workable and 
sustainable solution to the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate 
reimbursement levels.
  I urge my colleagues--particularly those on the other side of the 
aisle--to do the right thing by the American people and vote in favor 
of the Senate's amendment to H.R. 3630. The House leadership cannot 
continue to move the goalposts every time Congress appears close to a 
deal. The GOP strategy of trying to keep America down to win elections 
endangers the country, our people, and our future.
  In short, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and 
punish hardworking Americans in the process. We cannot in good 
conscience go home to our districts for the holidays without passing 
this bill and committing to coming back here in March to enact a full 
one-year extension of UI benefits, the payroll tax cuts, and Medicare 
physician reimbursement rates.
  The Congress's dithering around has brought us to the brink again, 
but we have an opportunity to salvage this situation tonight. We will 
be foolish to let it pass us by.
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to tell my fellow 
Americans that House Republicans have declared a war on the holidays. 
By refusing to allow an up or down vote on the payroll tax cut 
extension passed by the Senate, my Republican colleagues are putting 
lumps of coal in everyone's Christmas stockings, and taking away their 
Hanukkah gelt. We in Congress cannot in good conscience go home for the 
holidays until we ensure that our constituents can celebrate with their 
families instead of feeling like the Grinch stole all their presents.
  We have a measure in place which nine out of every ten Senators--both 
Democrats and Republicans--agreed to. We have a measure in place that 
the President, over his own wishes, has said he will sign into law. We 
have a measure that the majority of my Caucus is ready to support. Why 
are we waiting?!
  Mr. Speaker, today I urge to my colleagues to join me in support of a 
true payroll tax cut and unemployment extension. I urge them to join me 
in supporting the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3630. I urge them to join 
members of their own Caucus, and most of all I urge them to join the 
American public.
  We've been down this road before. What President Obama is for, the 
Republicans are against; and whatever the President is against, they 
are for. The Republicans are not looking out for the American people, 
Mr. Speaker--they are only looking out for their own selfish interests 
and for their stated goal of defeating President Obama in 2012.
  Let's put an end to these games, Mr. Speaker. Let's not give 160 
million Americans a $1,000 tax hike, let's not take away the 
unemployment benefits of 2.2 million Americans, and let's not block 48 
million seniors' access to their doctors.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support a one-year extension of 
the payroll tax holiday, unemployment insurance and protecting seniors' 
access to their Medicare physician. However, both Democrats and 
Republicans in the Senate of the United States voted overwhelmingly to 
extend these expiring provisions for two months, so that Congress might 
have adequate time to negotiate a longer term extension for the 
American people. House Republicans' refusal to vote on the Senate 
compromise puts at risk American middle class families at a time when 
we must do all that we can do to support them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Camp).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 193, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 946]

                               YEAS--229

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--193

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bachmann
     Buchanan
     Coble
     Diaz-Balart
     Filner
     Giffords
     Johnson, E. B.
     Olver
     Paul
     Schrader
     Woolsey

[[Page H9978]]



                              {time}  1256

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois and Ms. HAHN changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 946, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________